Discussion:
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
(too old to reply)
James
2013-10-02 12:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches

Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
military and kill the enemy? The head of all Christian religion said:

Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),

Jesus said, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Mt 19:19)

Jesus said, "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him,
"for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."" (Mt 26:52)

Also, one of Jesus' hand picked apostles said: 2 Co 10:3,4,

"3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world
does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world.
On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds."
(NIV)

Also, God Himself said in the new DNKJB,

"19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto
wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the
LORD
( Jehovah Lev 19:18; Deut 32:35; Ps 99:8; Nahum 1:2 ). - See more at:
http://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/NT45ROM12.htm#sthash.JIMlY5XT.dpuf

So let's review what Jesus and Paul said:

1) Love and pray for our enemies.

2) Love your neighbors;

3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.

4.) Christians can't wage war like the nations wage war.

5) Vengeance is God's, not for Christians.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Moses
2013-10-02 14:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
James
2013-10-02 18:39:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
If God wanted us dead, we'd all right now be kissing the dust of the
earth. No, God wants us to live. He hates taking lives. Eze 33:11,

" Answer them: As I live, says the Lord GOD, I swear I take no
pleasure in the death of the wicked man, but rather in the wicked
man's conversion, that he may live. Turn, turn from your evil ways!
Why should you die, O house of Israel?"

He created the earth to be inhabited, not be empty of life. (Is 45:18)

Concerning Jericho, the city was wicked and God was judging some
cities back then. As their Creator he had the right to judge them. And
he used the Israelite nation to be His executioner. But not everyone
in the city was destroyed. The two Israelite spies found a safe place
to stay in the house of the prostitute Rahab. Because she helped them
to escape the city, she and her family were spared the adverse
judgements by God.

Concerning Jesus he never once thought he was God. He said that God
was greater that he was (Joh 14:28), He admitted at Mr 13:32 that he
did not know everything God did. If he was God he would know it all.
And the apostle Paul at 1 Co 11:3 shows that Jesus is inferior to God
even now while being in Heaven with God.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-03 00:14:04 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, October 2, 2013 1:39:56 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

"Concerning Jesus he never once thought he was God"

Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses,
I Am That I Am:
and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I Am hath sent me unto you.

John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.

John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.

Notice: Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas.

The Word was made flesh
The Word was God
The flesh wasn't
The churches have understood it for 2000 years,
maybe some day you will.



Guess how the Greek Orthodox Church understands it.
"In the beginning was the word. And the Word was God."
http://www.goannunciation.org/2012-07-25-06-13-52.html?showall=&start=3

I guess you will say the Greeks don't understand Greek.
James
2013-10-03 15:20:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
"Concerning Jesus he never once thought he was God"
Exodus 3:14
And God said unto Moses,
and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel,
I Am hath sent me unto you.
John 8:58
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you,
Before Abraham was, I am.
Concerning John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14,

Jesus knew he existed before the world was made, but this doesn't
prove he was God Almighty. (John 17:5) Many angels also existed before
the world was created. (Job 38:7). In Exodus 3:14 God was using this
as a title and name to be used against the Egyptians.

A Bible scholar Dr. J.H. Hertz said that in that phrase 'I am that I
am' the main emphasis in on the active manifestation of God's Divine
existence. He said that God was about to show himself in behalf of his
people in great and wonderful way. He said that "I will be what I will
be" is also an approved rendering.

The footnote to the NASB Bible agrees and says, "1.14 Or I WILL BE
WHAT I WILL BE " .

When Jesus used the phrase he was not using it as a name or title. He
was only explaining his pre-human existence.

The Greek Septuagint Version, which is the one the Apostles quoted
from in the first century, renders Exodus 3:14 as " ego' eimi' ho
Ohn'," which translates "I am the Being". The Greek words at John 8:58
"ego eimi" show the use of the verb "eimi" in the historical present
because Jesus was talking about himself in relation to Abraham's past.
That is why some translations render it differently. For example:

--An American Translation reads. "I existed before Abraham was born!",

--Moffatt, "I have existed before Abraham was born",

--Sacred Bible, "Before Abraham existed, I was existing",

--The New Testament, "Jesus said to them, 'I tell you, I existed
before Abraham was born!",

--The Four Gospels According the Sinaitic Palimpsest, "He said unto
them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I have
been.",

--The Twentieth Century New Testament, "Believe me 'Jesus replied,
'before Abraham was born I was already what I am.",

--The Modern New Testament, "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say
to you, Before Abraham was born, I was.",

--The Syriac New Testament, "Jesus said to them: Verily, verily, I say
to you, That before Abraham existed, I was."

--The New World Translation (NWT) " Jesus said to them: "Most truly I
say to YOU, Before Abraham came into existence, I have been.""

I guess you should get the point by now. He was tellign everyone that
he existed before Abraham. Which is true, he was the first being that
God created. Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
John 20:28
And Thomas answered and said unto him,
My Lord and my God.
Notice: Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas.
True, the Greek structure there does contain the definite article
"the", thus making the word translated as "God", and not 'a god' as
John 1:1 is as shown above. So did Thomas contradict the Bible and say
that Jesus was God Almighty?

Thomas more than likely knew of Jesus' words a few verses earlier at
20:17b,

"I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."
Thus Jesus was also returning to Thomas' (and all other humans') God.
Also, Jesus clearly said that no one has ever seen God. Joh 1:18,

"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in
the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

And Thomas (and many others) had seen Jesus. So Scripturally, Jesus
could not have been God Almighty because they were even still alive
after seeing Jesus. (see Ex 33:20) And jumping to just 3 few verses
later that same writer, the apostle John, wrote that Jesus was the
"Son of God", not God. (John 20:31) So again, why did Thomas say it
that way, or the apostle John write it that way?

There are several possible explanations.

One was that the doubting Thomas was so enthused to have seen the
resurrected Jesus, that he exclaimed his astonishment to BOTH Jesus
and God: "My Lord and my God!" Seeing those wounds had just confirmed
that God really had resurrected Jesus, thus making all those things
true and not fake etc. Today, some people might say after an
astonishing event: "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!" It doesn't mean that all
three of them are the same person. It is just an expression about some
fabulous event.

Another possible explanation is that Thomas may have been doing what
others did in the past, in which a spokesman for God, like an angel,
was Biblically recorded as if it was actually God speaking. For
example Judges 13:20-22,

" 20. As the flame blazed up from the altar toward heaven, the angel
of the LORD ascended in the flame. Seeing this, Manoah and his wife
fell with their faces to the ground.
21. When the angel of the LORD did not show himself again to Manoah
and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the LORD.
22. "We are doomed to die!" he said to his wife. "We have seen God!"

Of course the account clearly states they saw an ANGEL of God, not God
Himself. But that angel so much REPRESENTED God that in essence they
'saw God', even though it clearly was an angel.

We have another example of this by Moses. Who gave the Mosaic laws to
Moses? In the OT it reads as if God did, but later on in the NT is
says that ANGELS delivered it. Acts 7:53,

"you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it."
(RSV)

So Thomas may have had such things in mind when he made his comment.

Another explanation is Greek and Arabic grammar. In some passages, in
the Greek the article "the" is found before the noun, but is not
translated as such because it is the way of that Greek grammar but has
no significance in the passage, and thus is dropped by the translator.
For example notice 1 Pe 2:18,

"Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to
the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing." (RSV)

But the literal Greek reads:

"The household servants, being submissive with all fear to the
masters,..."

Notice the definite article "the" before household servants and
masters. But it is dropped by the translators because of its
insignificance to the idea presented here. (see also the Greek
interlinear of Colossians 3:18 to 4:1, and 1 Peter 3:1, 7)

The definite article is also dropped by the translators at Joh 20:28,
but the significance of it is passed on by the translators to the
Greek word for "god" found there, thus making it "God" instead of
"god".

Yes, the Scriptures do not say that Jesus was God Almighty. God
Almighty always lived (Ps 90:2), but Jesus was created. Col 1:15,

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
(NASB)

Jesus acknowledged that he was not equal to God. Joh 14:28,

"You heard me say, `I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If
you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the
Father is greater than I." (NIV)

And when Jesus was resurrected and went back to Heaven to be with God
again, Jesus still was inferior to God. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

I hope that helped you to see Jesus' true relationship with God. He
was God's Son, not God. As Jesus himself said at Joh 10:36,

"what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent
into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said,
`I am God's Son'?" (NIV)
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
The Word was made flesh
The Word was God
The flesh wasn't
The churches have understood it for 2000 years,
maybe some day you will.
You are quoting John 1:1. You need to examine the Greek words used in
that passage. Jesus is not claiming to be equal or replace Jehovah.
(Joh 14:28) Rather, his description in John 1:1 makes him god-like, or
have god-like qualities. Lets see if it is wrong to call Jesus "a
god". The Bible calls Satan a "god". 2 Co 4:4,

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that
they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is
the image of God." (NIV)

If Paul can call Satan a "god", cannot John call Jesus "a god"?

In the book of Psalms, the human judges of ancient Israel are also
referred to as "gods". Ps 82:1,6,

"GOD takes His stand in His own congregation; He judges in the midst
of
the rulers. 6 I said, «You are gods, And all of you are sons of the
Most High." (NASB)

Jesus also quoted this scripture at Joh 10:34,35. When charged by
opposers with 'making himself a god,' Jesus' reply was: "Is it not
written in your Law, 'I said: "You are gods"'? If he called 'gods'
those against whom the word of God came, and yet the Scripture cannot
be nullified, do you say to me whom the Father sanctified and
dispatched into the world, 'You blaspheme,' because I said, I am God's
Son?" (Joh 10:31-37)

Jesus there quoted from Psalm 82, in which human judges, whom God
condemned for not executing justice, were called "gods." (Ps 82:1, 2,
6, 7) Thus, Jesus showed the unreasonableness of charging him with
blasphemy for stating that he was, not God, but God's Son.

Thus it is well within the harmony of the scriptures that Jesus could
be referred to as "a god", but not the Almighty God, Jehovah.

Other than the Jehovah's Witness Bible (NWT), here are some others:

"the Logos was divine." (MO);
"the Word was divine." (AT; SD);
"a god was the Word." (interlinear ED) ;
"the Word was a god" (NTIV).
"the Word was a god." (NWT)
"The Word was deity." (Simple English)


So why don't ALL Bibles agree on that passage? It all depends how
close the translators stay with the Greek grammar from the
manuscript(s) they translated it from.

What if I said to you these similar two statements:

He is George Bush.
He is the George Bush.

Does the addition of the definite article "the" change the meaning a
little? It is a similar thing with the Greek grammar found at John
1:1.

In Greek, that passage contains the word "god" [theos] twice, and the
context is talking about God and the Word (Jesus). [not some kinds of
false gods]

The first one has the definite article "the" before it, the second one
does not. Thus there is a difference between the meaning of the first
"god" [theos] and the second "god" [theos]. And a good translation
should show that difference.

According to the Bible translator William Barclay, he says that when a
Greek noun doesn't have the definite article in front of it, it
becomes a description (like an adjective) rather than an identity
(like a noun). And the second "theos" [god] has no definite article
preceding it.

The Catholic Bible, New American Bible (NAB), says in a footnote on
John 1:1,

"Was God:lack of a definite article with "God" in Greek signifies
predication rather than identification".

And the apostle John near the end of his book at John 20:31, mentions
the final concluding comment about Jesus' position as to God. He said
that Jesus was the "Son of God", not 'God the Son', nor 'God'.

Thus to ACCURATELY get across what the writer of Joh 1:1 was saying,
is to show that the "Word" [Jesus] was with Almighty God in the
beginning, and that the "Word" was also like a god, or godlike.

That is how the Greek manuscripts read, and that is how honest and
accurate translators should translate it for their readers.
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Guess how the Greek Orthodox Church understands it.
"In the beginning was the word. And the Word was God."
http://www.goannunciation.org/2012-07-25-06-13-52.html?showall=&start=3
I guess you will say the Greeks don't understand Greek.
Actually, if you ask someone who REALLY knows ancient Greek, and is
not influenced by the post-Biblical Trinity doctrine, he will tell you
that "a god" is more of an exact translation.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
vince garcia
2013-10-04 11:45:57 UTC
Permalink
No one picks up stones to stone someone for saying "I was around before
abraham"; they pick up stones for claiming to be God.

1. ego eimi means I AM/I AM HE in greek. It harkens back to the
Septuagint greek "I am he" of Isaiah 41:4
If He actually spoke in HEBBREW (which I think He did), He must have
used YAHWEH, because the jews wanted to stone Him.
3. The jews go on to explicitly SAY they want to stone Him for His being
a man yet making Himself to be God, NOT for saying "I was around before
abraham".

Quoting bad bible translations dilluting what was said, which we know is
a false conclusion because no one picks up stones to stone someone for
saying "I was around before abraham," is manifestly deceptive

Can't add any more to it or make it any simpler for you
James
2013-10-04 14:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by vince garcia
No one picks up stones to stone someone for saying "I was around before
abraham"; they pick up stones for claiming to be God.
Stephen was stoned to death, and he wasn't claiming to be God.
The Jews were quick to stone, but slow to listen.
Post by vince garcia
1. ego eimi means I AM/I AM HE in greek. It harkens back to the
Septuagint greek "I am he" of Isaiah 41:4
If He actually spoke in HEBBREW (which I think He did), He must have
used YAHWEH, because the jews wanted to stone Him.
3. The jews go on to explicitly SAY they want to stone Him for His being
a man yet making Himself to be God, NOT for saying "I was around before
abraham".
That is part of the reason they tried to stoned him. The other is that
he was claiming to be a god. Only a god could be living before Abraham
and still living then. THat would have made Jesus at least over 2000
years old. A good enough reason to stone him.

They knew he wasn't claiming to be God, So no telling what the Jews
thought about Jesus since they were so messed up on their beliefs.
But Jesus' own disciples knew he wasn't the father. John 14:8,

"Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for
us.”" (NWT)



James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by vince garcia
Quoting bad bible translations dilluting what was said, which we know is
a false conclusion because no one picks up stones to stone someone for
saying "I was around before abraham," is manifestly deceptive
Can't add any more to it or make it any simpler for you
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-04 18:56:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by vince garcia
No one picks up stones to stone someone for saying "I was around before
Abraham"; they pick up stones for claiming to be God.
Stephen was stoned to death, and he wasn't claiming to be God.
No, he was claiming Jesus was God that why Saul/Paul
gave the OK to stone Stephen.
Post by James
The Jews were quick to stone, but slow to listen.
They stoned for blasphemy.
Post by James
Post by vince garcia
1. ego eimi means I AM/I AM HE in greek. It harkens back to the
Septuagint greek "I am he" of Isaiah 41:4
If He actually spoke in HEBBREW (which I think He did), He must have
used YAHWEH, because the jews wanted to stone Him.
3. The jews go on to explicitly SAY they want to stone Him for His being
a man yet making Himself to be God, NOT for saying "I was around before
abraham".
That is part of the reason they tried to stoned him. The other is that
he was claiming to be a god. Only a god could be living before Abraham
and still living then. THat would have made Jesus at least over 2000
years old. A good enough reason to stone him.
They knew he wasn't claiming to be God, So no telling what the Jews
thought about Jesus since they were so messed up on their beliefs.
But Jesus' own disciples knew he wasn't the father. John 14:8,
John 5:18
Therefore the Iewes sought the more to kill him,
not onely because hee had broken the Sabbath,
but said also, that God was his father,
making himselfe equall with God.
Post by James
"Philip said to him: “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for
us.”" (NWT)
St. John 14
9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by vince garcia
Quoting bad bible translations dilluting what was said, which we know is
a false conclusion because no one picks up stones to stone someone for
saying "I was around before Abraham," is manifestly deceptive
Can't add any more to it or make it any simpler for you
The Scripture is clear.
John 5:18
Therefore the Iewes sought the more to kill him,
not onely because hee had broken the Sabbath,
but said also, that God was his father,
making himselfe equall with God.

The NWT turns Jesus into a demigod which
is a pagan concept. Christians are monotheists
which means one God,no more, no less.

Welcome to Demigods of Greece!!!

Demigods were very important people in Greek mythology. They were half mortal and half god. Most of these were heroes, but not all of them. I am about to explain five such demigods. These are some of the most famous demigods in Greek mythology.
http://library.thinkquest.org/5830/DemiGods.htm
vince garcia
2013-10-05 10:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by vince garcia
No one picks up stones to stone someone for saying "I was around before
abraham"; they pick up stones for claiming to be God.
Stephen was stoned to death, and he wasn't claiming to be God.
The Jews were quick to stone, but slow to listen.
Post by vince garcia
1. ego eimi means I AM/I AM HE in greek. It harkens back to the
Septuagint greek "I am he" of Isaiah 41:4
If He actually spoke in HEBBREW (which I think He did), He must have
used YAHWEH, because the jews wanted to stone Him.
3. The jews go on to explicitly SAY they want to stone Him for His being
a man yet making Himself to be God, NOT for saying "I was around before
abraham".
That is part of the reason they tried to stoned him. The other is that
he was claiming to be a god. Only a god could be living before Abraham
and still living then. THat would have made Jesus at least over 2000
years old. A good enough reason to stone him.
They knew he wasn't claiming to be God,
quite the opposite:

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I showed you from my
Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but
for blasphemy; AND BECAUSE that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-02 18:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Killing the Canaanites: A Response to the New Atheism’s “Divine Genocide” Claims
Article ID: JAF3334
By: Clay Jones
http://www.equip.org/articles/killing-the-canaanites/


This article first appeared in the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL, volume33, number 04 (2010). For further information or to subscribe to the CHRISTIAN RESEARCH JOURNAL go to: http://www.equip.org/christian-research-journal/
SYNOPSIS
The “new atheists” call God’s commands to kill the Canaanites “genocide,” but a closer look at the horror of the Canaanites’ sinfulness, exhibited in rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, reveals that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but capital punishment. After all, the Old Testament unequivocally commands that those who do any one of these things deserves to die. Also, God made it clear in His conversation with Abraham regarding the Canaanite cities of Sodom and Gomorrah that He knows who would or would not repent, and in the case of those cities, not one person would heed the warning and even Lot’s family had to be forcibly pulled away from the coming destruction. In Leviticus 18 God then warns Israel that if they commit similar sins that the land would similarly “vomit” them out. Later when Israel disobeys God and allows the Canaanites to continue to live among them, the corruptive and seductive power of Canaanite sin results in the Canaanization of Israel. Subsequently, God sent prophets to warn Israel of their coming destruction, but they didn’t repent and God said that they became “like Sodom to me” and He visited destruction on Israel for committing the same sins. This again reveals that God’s motive isn’t genocide, but capital punishment. That we commit similar sins today renders us incapable of appropriate moral outrage against these sins and thus we accuse God of “genocide” to justify our own sinfulness.
Richard Dawkins and other new atheists herald God’s ordering of the destruction of Canaanite cities to be divine “ethnic cleansing” and “genocides.”1 With righteous indignation, Dawkins opines that the God of the Old Testament is “the most unpleasant character in all of fiction.”2 But was the killing of the Canaanites an example of divine genocide? If you think the Canaanites deserved to die because of their own wickedness, Dawkins will zealously compare you to acting like the Taliban.3 A closer look at several key facts will help explain God’s reason for the destruction of the Canaanites and reveal how our own sinfulness demonstrates our incapacity to judge rightly.
That atheists are incapable of judging spiritual matters leads some Christians to wonder why we even need to answer them at all, especially if they lack any objective, moral, or epistemological foundation for their claims. Moreover, most atheists do not customarily condemn the very practices that God condemns, for example, idolatry, adultery, and homosexuality. Predictably so, their values conflict with what God hates.
Concerning the destruction of the Canaanites, atheists especially like to exploit the Christian condemnation of genocide. They reason something along these lines: (1) Christians condemn genocide. (2) Yahweh’s command to kill the Canaanites was an act of divine genocide. (3) Therefore, Christians should condemn Yahweh for commanding genocide.
The second premise is false, however. Part of the goal of this essay is to offer evidence to show that God had good reason to command Israel to kill the Canaanites. In Leviticus 18 and elsewhere, for example, the Bible reveals that God punished the Canaanites for specific grievous evils. Also, this wasn’t the entire destruction of a race as God didn’t order that every Canaanite be killed but only those who lived within specific geographical boundaries (Josh. 1:4). Canaanite tribes (especially the Hittites) greatly exceeded the boundaries that Israel was told to conquer. And since, as we will see, He punished Israel when they committed the same sins, what happened to the Canaanites was not genocide, but capital punishment.
This wasn’t merely punishment, however. God sought to reveal His standards of righteousness to a thoroughly corrupted humankind, and He chose Israel out of the nations to exhibit the requirements for relationship with Him (Deut. 4:5–8). Before He redeemed humankind, He needed to unambiguously demonstrate what exactly He was redeeming them from: a blatant and unrestrained evil that resulted in a worthless, nasty, and cruel existence. God knows what is best for humankind, but He allowed free creatures to rebel and find out on their own that He is right. If Jesus had died to redeem humankind prior to humankind’s comprehending the depth of their sin, then people would question the need for Jesus’ death. Why would Jesus die for basically good folk? God waited to redeem humankind until they had the chance to be, as 2 Live Crew once put it, “as nasty as they wanna be.”
THE CANAANITES WERE WICKED
The Bible is explicit concerning the sins of the Canaanites: idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality. Much of what follows is horrific, but if we refuse to look, will we really understand the reasons for God’s judgment?
Idolatry. The Canaanites worshiped other gods, which the Old Testament frequently denounced as no more than sticks or pottery made by human hands that could not “see or hear or eat or smell” (Deut. 4:28 NIV). Yahweh derided these handmade gods that cannot speak and must be carried because they cannot walk (Jer. 1:16; 8:2–5).
The Canaanites took seriously the testimony of the Old Testament witness of Yahweh and His revelation, if for no other reason than intentionally to transform the scriptural depiction of Yahweh into a castrated weakling who likes to play with His own excrement and urine.4
Of course Dawkins complains that “God’s monumental rage whenever his chosen people flirted with a rival god resembles nothing so much as sexual jealousy of the worst kind.”5 But does anyone think that if Dawkins’s wife left him for a gingerbread man of her own baking, and then she began to tell everyone that he liked to play with his excrement, that Dawkins would tolerate the characterization of his feelings as no more than “sexual jealously of the worst kind”?
Idolatry perverts our ability to love what Yahweh loves. Consequently, we love what He hates, and we hate what He loves. The story of Canaanite incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality flow out of the plot line of idolatry. The tragedy of this story is that not only is idolatry an offense to Yahweh, but it fails to supply a happy ending for human communities as well.
Incest. Like all Ancient Near East (ANE) pantheons, the Canaanite pantheon was incestuous. Baal has sex with his mother Asherah,6 his sister Anat, and his daughter Pidray,7 and none of this is presented pejoratively.
Although early Canaanite laws proscribed either death or banishment for most forms of incest, after the fourteenth century BC, the penalties were reduced to no more than the payment of a fine.8 In the larger ANE context, it is helpful to consider that in an Egyptian dream book dreams of having sex with your mother or your sister were considered good omens.9
Adultery. Canaanite religion, like that of all of the ANE, was a fertility religion that involved temple sex. Inanna/Ishtar, also known as the Queen of Heaven, “became the woman among the gods, patron of eroticism and sensuality, of conjugal love as well as adultery, of brides and prostitutes, transvestites and pederasts.”10 As University of Helsinki professor Martti Nissinen writes, “Sexual contact with a person whose whole life was devoted to the goddess was tantamount to union with the goddess herself.”11
The Canaanites even remake the God of the Bible, El, after their own image and portray Him ceremonially as having sex with two women (or goddesses). The ceremony ends with directions: “To be repeated five times by the company and the singers of the assembly.”12 About this John Gray comments, “We may well suppose that this activity of El was sacramentally experienced by the community in the sexual orgies of the fertility cult which the Hebrew prophets so vehemently denounced.”13
Child sacrifice. Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity14 represented as an upright, bullheaded idol with a human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death. The victims were not only infants; children as old as four were sacrificed.15 Kleitarchos reported that “as the flame burning the child surrounded the body, the limbs would shrivel up and the mouth would appear to grin as if laughing, until it was shrunk enough to slip into the cauldron.”16
Homosexuality. No ANE text condemns homosexuality. Additionally, some ANE manuscripts talk about “party-boys and festival people who changed their masculinity into femininity to make the people of Ishtar revere her.”17
Let us also remember that the problem with the Canaanite city of Sodom wasn’t just sex among consenting adults: the men of Sodom, both young and old, tried to rape the visitors (Gen. 19:5).
Bestiality. Probably the ultimate sexual depravity is intercourse with animals. Hittite Laws: 199 states, “If anyone has intercourse with a pig or a dog, he shall die. If a man has intercourse with a horse or a mule, there is no punishment.”18 As with incest, the penalty for having sex with animals decreased about the fourteenth century BC.19
There should be no surprise that bestiality would occur among the Canaanites, since their gods practiced it. From the Canaanite epic poem “The Baal Cycle” we learn: “Mightiest Baal hears / He makes love with a heifer in the outback / A cow in the field of Death’s Realm. / He lies with her seventy times seven / Mounts eighty times eight / [She conceiv]es and bears a boy.”20
There were absolutely no prohibitions against bestiality in the rest of the ANE.21 In fact, in an Egyptian dream book it was a bad omen for a woman to dream about embracing her husband, but good things would happen if she dreamed of intercourse with a baboon, wolf, or he-goat.22 In short, their sexual fantasies involved everything that breathes.
This explains why, in certain cities, Yahweh sentenced to death everything that breathes. If they had sex with just about every living thing they could get their hands on, and they did, then all had to die. Dawkins objects that it adds “injury to insult” that “the unfortunate beast is to be killed too.”23 But Dawkins doesn’t seem to grasp that no one would want to have animals around who were used to having sex with humans.24 Moreover, this might also explain why God used a flood to destroy what Dawkins called the “presumably blameless” animals in the days of Noah.25 If pre-flood humankind frequently had sex with every imaginable animal, then even though it wasn’t the animals’ fault, it would be harmful to allow these animals to be a part of God’s start-over society.
ISRAEL SEDUCED AND CORRUPTED
Israel’s response to Canaanite sin is a parable of how their own sinfulness empowered them to ape the sin of the Canaanites and thereby procure God’s judgment on them. For God does not show favoritism. Israel was warned not to let the Canaanites live in their land, but to completely destroy them (Exod. 23:33; Deut. 20:16–18), lest the Israelites learn the Canaanite ways (Exod. 34:15–16). If they did not destroy them, the land would “vomit” them out just as it had vomited out the Canaanites (Num. 33:56; Lev. 18:28; Deut 4:23–29, 8:19–20).
Instead, the Israelites worshiped the Canaanites’ gods and “did evil” (Judg. 10:6; 1 Kings 14:22; 2 Kings 17:10). They had “male shrine prostitutes” (1 Kings 14:22), committed acts of “lewdness,” adultery, and incest (Jer. 5:7; 29:23; Hos. 4:13–14; Ezek. 22:10–11; Amos 2:7), and even Solomon set up an altar to Molech (1 Kings 11:5, 7–8). But instead of repenting when things went badly, they concluded that their misfortune was because they stopped burning incense to “the Queen of Heaven,” Inanna/Ishtar (Jer. 44:18). So the Lord said that Israel became “like Sodom to me” (Jer. 23:14). In short, Israel was Canaanized.
Although prophets warned the northern kingdom (usually referred to as Israel or Samaria) of impending doom, they didn’t repent, and in 722 BC the king of Assyria killed or deported most of them, and filled the land with conquered peoples from other nations. Similarly, the southern tribes (usually referred to as Judah) were deported when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem beginning in 586 BC. Just as God had demonstrated his knowledge of who would repent in the Canaanite cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, before he destroyed Jerusalem He told Jeremiah that if He could find even one righteous person He would spare the entire city (Jer. 5:1).
It doesn’t stop there. In Luke 20 Jesus told the Jews the parable of the tenants and the vineyard. Servants were sent to the tenants of the vineyard, but had been mistreated, and so the owner of the vineyard sent his son, but the tenants killed the son. Jesus then warned, “What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.” Then, in AD 70, forty years after Jesus was crucified, the Roman emperor Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Josephus records that the Jews in Jerusalem “were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city….So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.”26 Titus then renamed the region Palestine and for almost 1,900 years one couldn’t find “Israel” on the map.
What God commanded Israel to do to the Canaanites wasn’t genocide—it was capital punishment. In both Testaments we see that God hates sin and will punish it.
GOD KNOWS WHO WILL REPENT
Could there have been any righteous Canaanites, especially in view of the pervasive, seductive, and corrosive nature of Canaanite sin? Abraham asked the Lord this exact question in Genesis 18 regarding the coming destruction of two Canaanite cities—Sodom and Gomorrah: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city?…Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”27 Ultimately the Lord then agrees to spare both cities if only ten righteous people were found.
When angels arrive, however, the men of the city try to rape them and not only does Lot not find anyone who will repent, Lot himself tarries so long that the angels take Lot and his family by the arms and all but drag them out of the city. Later Lot’s own daughters get him drunk to have sex with him and so even Dawkins, in a surprising moment of moral clarity, writes, “If this dysfunctional family was the best Sodom had to offer by way of morals, some might begin to feel a certain sympathy with God and his judicial brimstone.”28
Skeptics often complain that children were killed in Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction. Such a complaint usually masks an unspoken premise: God shouldn’t have killed the children because that wouldn’t give them the chance to reject Canaanite sin. Curiously, this simply relates back to the entire dialogue of God with Abraham. God knows who will or will not repent of his or her sin and if He concludes that all the children would have been similarly corrupted, then He is perfectly right to institute capital punishment.
Moreover, given the evidence of Canaanite sin, it is no stretch to realize that even many young children would have already learned Canaanite ways. Thus, if God wanted to rid the world of their wickedness, then He couldn’t have them grow up wanting to imitate their birth parents with whom they bonded. Imagine the teenage rebellion in those households! Wouldn’t even infants, as they grew, begin to ask, “What practices did my parents do which resulted in your killing them?” As sad as this is, it also points to the horror of sin. Parents can corrupt their children.29
But why should we take seriously the skeptic’s advocacy for Canaanite children? Doesn’t the new atheist’s complaint ring hollow, since they are often at the forefront of defending a woman’s right to suction, dismember, or scald to death her unborn baby at any time and for any reason?
Perhaps what the skeptic is really concerned about is whether the just destruction of the Canaanites is license for Christians to resort to killing the wicked. The answer is: absolutely not! We don’t live in a theocracy anymore and, as Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:4–5, we don’t fight with “the weapons of the world,” but “we demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (NIV). In other words, we now wage war in prayer and in the realm of ideas.
OUR SIN AND THE NEW ATHEIST CLAIMS
The new atheists immaculately exemplify what the Bible has proclaimed all along: sin corrupts our authority to judge rightly; what we think is justified prosecution against God Almighty turns out to be, on further illumination, a raucous rant full of the noxious fumes of the sinful heart.
Consider one basic example of how new atheist rationalizations echo the propensities of “Canaanite sin,” and indeed, echo the rationalizations of the human heart. Concerning sexual desire, Dawkins questions why evangelical Christians are so “obsessed” with “private sexual inclinations.”30 The apparently not obsessed Christopher Hitchens considers “dangerous sexual repression” so serious that he calls it one of the “four irreducible objections to religious faith.”31 Dawkins and Hitchens are not just encouraging a sort of sexual libertarianism per se. They are insisting that God and Christianity are in fact poisonous and must diligently be resisted and defeated. In a recent debate with William Lane Craig, Hitchens exhorted the Christians in the audience, “Emancipate yourself from the idea of a celestial dictatorship and you’ve taken the first step toward becoming free.”32
Although Dawkins nowhere endorses sex with animals, he does endorse Princeton atheist and ethicist Peter Singer as an “eloquent advocate” for our need to become “postspeciesist.”33 According to Singer, to claim that one species is better than another is to invoke grave implications because, after all, “We are animals….This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.”34
The problem with new atheist divine genocide claims is rather simple: God hates sin, but the new atheists do not.35 Consequently, they complain of divine genocide in the face of Canaanite sin! So let’s not kid ourselves: at the end of the day no amount of explanation will cause today’s illuminati (or “brights,” as some new atheists like to be called) to consider God’s commands justified.36 But our job as Christians is to proclaim unambiguously, especially to strongholds set up against knowledge of God, that humankind is sinful, that the wages of sin is death, and that by trusting Christ’s sacrifice we can be saved from the wrath of God and enjoy resurrection life in and with Him forever.
Clay Jones is assistant professor in the Master of Arts in Christian Apologetics program at Biola University and specializes in issues related to why God allows evil.
notes
1 Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), 247.
2 Ibid., 31.
3 Ibid., 246.
4 See Ulf Oldenburg, The Conflict between El and Ba‘al in Canaanite Religion (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1969), 172.
5 Dawkins, 243.
6 For the story of Baal having sex with Asherah, see: “El, Ashertu and the Storm-god,” trans. Albrecht Goetze, ed. James B. Pritchard, The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University, 1969), 519.
7 W. F. Albright, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1968), 145.
8 Harry A. Hoffner, Jr., “Incest, Sodomy and Bestiality in the Ancient Near East,” in Orient and Occident: Essays Presented to Cyrus H. Gordon on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, ed. Harry A. Hoffner, Jr. (Neukirchen Vluyn, Germany: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973), 82.
9 See the Papyrus Chester Beatty III recto (BM10683) from about 1175 BC as referenced in Lise Manniche, Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt (London: Routledge, 1987), 100.
10 Gwendolyn Leick, Sex and Eroticism in Mesopotamian Literature (New York: Routledge, 1994), 57.
11Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 33.
12 John Gray, The Legacy of Canaan (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1965), 101–2.
13Ibid., 101.
14 John Day, Molech: A God of Human Sacrifice in the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989), 62.
15 Shelby Brown, Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice and Sacrificial Monuments in Their Mediterranean Context (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic, 1991), 14.
16 Kleitarchos, Scholia on Plato’s Republic 337A as quoted in Day, 87.
17 Stephanie Dalley, “Erra and Ishum IV,” Myths from Mesopotamia (Oxford: Oxford University, 1989), 305.
18 Hoffner, 82. HL §§ 187–88, 199.
19 Ibid., 85.
20 Mark S. Smith, trans. Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, ed. Simon B. Parker (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1997), 148.
21 Hoffner, 82.
22 Manniche, 102.
23 Dawkins, 248.
24 For an example of how embarrassing and dangerous this could be, see Robert M. Yerkes, “The Mind of the Gorilla: Part III. Memory,” Comparative Psychology Monographs 5, 2 (1928): 68–69.
25 Dawkins, 237–38.
26 Flavius Josephus, The Works of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Hartford, CN: S. S. Scranton, 1905), WORDsearch CROSS e-book, 822.
27 Genesis 18:23–25 NIV.
28 Dawkins, 240.
29 Although no Scripture is definitive that all children will be saved, many Christians point out that it is possible (based on verses like Matthew 19:14). And if all children are saved, then a Canaanite child would benefit by being alive in a better place.
30 Dawkins, 238.
31 Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Boston: Twelve Books, 2007), 4.
32The debate between Craig and Hitchens occurred on April 4, 2009 at Biola University. The quote is from Gail Patches, “The Great Debate: Craig, Hitchens ask ‘Does God Exist?’” Whittier Daily News, April 5, 2009, A1, A4.
33 Dawkins, 271.
34 Peter Singer “Heavy Petting: Review of Midas Dekkers, ‘Dearest Pet: On Bestiality’ (London, 2000),” Nerve.com, 2001, http://www.nerve.com/opinions/singer/heavypetting/main.asp. Accessed 5 November 2008.
35 Sadly, all too often, neither do we.
36 Dawkins, 338. A special thanks to Joseph Gorra for his many helpful suggestions and to my wife, Jean E. Jones, for her extensive reading of ANE primary and secondary sources and for years ago explaining to me much of the Old Testament.
Equip Others:
duke
2013-10-02 20:58:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
•RLMeasures
2013-10-02 22:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
€€ Duke would do well to read more about Masada before he repeats this.
duke
2013-10-04 10:56:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
€€ Duke would do well to read more about Masada before he repeats this.
I rest my case.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
•RLMeasures
2013-10-04 13:01:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
€€ Duke would do well to read more about Masada before he repeats this.
I rest my case.
€€ your brain appears to be as well.
duke
2013-10-05 11:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by duke
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
€€ Duke would do well to read more about Masada before he repeats this.
I rest my case.
€€ your brain appears to be as well.
Yes, my brain is resting. It hasn't been challenged in the ng very much lately.
Thank you.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
•RLMeasures
2013-10-05 20:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by duke
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
€€ Duke would do well to read more about Masada before he repeats this.
I rest my case.
€€ your brain appears to be as well.
Yes, my brain is resting. It hasn't been challenged in the ng very much lately.
€ Good opportunity to read about Masada. If only they had realized that
if they dumped used tampons on them the Roman soldiers would have packed
and scattered like scared chickens when a Redtail hawk is cruising
overhead.
James
2013-10-04 15:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
PATRICK
2013-10-04 17:58:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
•RLMeasures
2013-10-05 08:43:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
James
2013-10-05 13:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
Good thing no one scraped up Hitler's brains to save it, like they
carefully did Einstein's.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-05 18:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
Good thing no one scraped up Hitler's brains to save it, like they
carefully did Einstein's.
Carefully?

Dr. Thomas Harvey was the doctor who initially conducted the autopsy
on Einstein at Princeton Hospital in 1955 and removed Einstein's
brain, carefully sliced it into sections, and then kept it for
research. According to reports, Dr. Thomas Harvey did not have
permission from Einstein's family to keep his brain. After his release
from Princeton, Dr. Harvey kept the brain sections stored in jars for
nearly 23 years and placed the jars in a box behind a beer cooler in
his office.
•RLMeasures
2013-10-05 20:57:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
Good thing no one scraped up Hitler's brains to save it, like they
carefully did Einstein's.
€€ Only removed brains with mad cows disease are dangerous.
James
2013-10-06 16:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
Good thing no one scraped up Hitler's brains to save it, like they
carefully did Einstein's.
€€ Only removed brains with mad cows disease are dangerous.
Hitler's dendrites must have been wound up like spaghetti. Or he had
mad cow disease or something like it. Hitler also killed JW's who
would not give the Hitler salute "Heil Hitler". All they had to do was
to denounce Jehovah God, and they would have lived. Hitler did not
give the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals such a choice. At any rate,
that mad animal is dead and good riddance.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-06 16:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
Good thing no one scraped up Hitler's brains to save it, like they
carefully did Einstein's.
€€ Only removed brains with mad cows disease are dangerous.
Hitler's dendrites must have been wound up like spaghetti. Or he had
mad cow disease or something like it. Hitler also killed JW's who
would not give the Hitler salute "Heil Hitler". All they had to do was
to denounce Jehovah God, and they would have lived. Hitler did not
give the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals such a choice. At any rate,
that mad animal is dead and good riddance.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Hitler died because many real Christians were
willing to obey Romans 13
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;
for he beareth not the sword in vain:
for he is the minister of God,
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject,
not only for wrath,
but also for conscience sake.

Like the Israelites, they followed
Joshua 10:25
And Joshua said unto them,
Fear not, nor be dismayed,
be strong and of good courage:
for thus shall the LORD do
to all your enemies against whom ye fight.

2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not;
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
•RLMeasures
2013-10-06 20:24:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
€€ The Rom / Gypsies claim to be The Chosen People like the Jews.
Curiously, both groups were Chosen for special treatment by Adolph Hitler
- who gassed 55% of the Jews and 98% of the Gypsies in Europe before he
blew his brains out with a 9mm pistol.
Good thing no one scraped up Hitler's brains to save it, like they
carefully did Einstein's.
€€ Only removed brains with mad cows disease are dangerous.
Hitler's dendrites must have been wound up like spaghetti. Or he had
mad cow disease or something like it.
• He apparently had syphilis of the brain.
Post by James
Hitler also killed JW's who
would not give the Hitler salute "Heil Hitler". All they had to do was
to denounce Jehovah God, and they would have lived. Hitler did not
give the Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals such a choice. At any rate,
that mad animal is dead and good riddance.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
duke
2013-10-05 11:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.

The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
James
2013-10-05 13:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
duke
2013-10-06 12:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.
JW's are not Christians because of some strange views they hold about God and
the bible.
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
James
2013-10-06 20:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.
JW's are not Christians because of some strange views they hold about God and
the bible.
Yes, Bible truths may seem strange to some people, such as the absence
of the 'hellfire' doctrine in the Bible (hell is the common grave of
dead mankind), no Purgatory from the Bible, the post-Biblical Trinity
doctrine, no Limbo in the Bible, no immortality of the "soul", no
kneeling in front of man-made statues, no leaning towards the
evolutionary theory, not all the good people will go to Heaven, most
Bibles have torn out God's name (the Tetragrammaton) from their Bible
translations, calling the Bible "myth" in some places, not full
immersion for baptism, no papasy to be passed on., the Church order
not to eat meat on Friday, The Church-forced celebracy for their
religious leadeers, Their calling their religious leaders with
religous titles such as 'Father Smith', the permission to have blood
transfusions, the giving of indulgences, etc.

I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-06 22:23:30 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 3:51:45 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

"I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask."

Proverbs 16:18
Pride goeth before destruction,
and an haughty spirit before a fall.


The Unity of the Catholic Church
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churc1.htm

by St. Cyprian of Carthage (A.D. 200? - 258)

Chapter 4

If anyone considers and examines these things, there is no need of a lengthy discussion and arguments. Proof for faith is easy in a brief statement of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter: 'I say to thee,' He says, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.' Upon him, being one, He builds His Church, and although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,' yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power, but the beginning proceeds from unity, that the Church of Christ may be shown to be one. This one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Canticle of Canticles designates in the person of the Lord and says: 'One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen one of her that bore her.' Does he who does not hold this unity think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against the Church and resists her think that he is in the Church, when too the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this same thing and sets forth the sacrament of unity saying: 'One body and one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God'?

Chapter 5

This unity we ought to hold firmly and defend, especially we bishops who watch over the Church, that we may prove that also the episcopate itself is one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by lying; let no one corrupt the faith by a perfidious prevarication of the truth. The episcopate is one, the parts of which are held together by the individual bishops. The Church is one which with increasing fecundity extend far and wide into the multitude, just as the rays of the sun are many but the light is one, and the branches of the tree are many but the strength is one founded in its tenacious root, and, when many streams flow from one source, although a multiplicity of waters seems to have been diffused from the abundance of the overflowing supply nevertheless unity is preserved in their origin. Take away a ray of light from the body of the sun, its unity does not take on any division of its light; break a branch from a tree, the branch thus broken will not be able to bud; cut off a stream from its source, the stream thus cut off dries up. Thus too the Church bathed in the light of the Lord projects its rays over the whole world, yet there is one light which is diffused everywhere, and the unity of the body is not separated. She extends her branches over the whole earth in fruitful abundance; she extends her richly flowing streams far and wide; yet her head is one, and her source is one, and she is the one mother copious in the results of her fruitfulness. By her womb we are born; by her milk we are nourished; by her spirit we are animated.

Chapter 6

The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled; she is uncorrupted and chaste. She knows one home, with chaste modesty she guards the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God; she assigns the children whom she has created to the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined with an adulteress is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he who has abandoned the Church arrive at the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He cannot have God as a father who does not have the Church as a mother. If whoever was outside the ark of Noe was able to escape, he too who is outside. the Church escapes. The Lord warns, saying: 'He who is not with me is against me, and who does not gather with me, scatters.' He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers somewhere outside the Church scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one.' Does anyone believe that this unity which comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the Church and be separated by the divisions of colliding wills? He who does not hold this unity, does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

The Unity of the Catholic Church, cc. 4-6.
View complete text of The Unity of the Catholic Church.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/sources/unity.txt
PATRICK
2013-10-06 23:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Yes, Bible truths may seem strange to some people, such as the absence
of the 'hellfire' doctrine in the Bible (hell is the common grave of
dead mankind),
no Purgatory from the Bible,
the post-Biblical Trinity doctrine,
no Limbo in the Bible,
no immortality of the "soul",
no kneeling in front of man-made statues,
no leaning towards the evolutionary theory,
not all the good people will go to Heaven,
most Bibles have torn out God's name (the Tetragrammaton) from their Bible
translations, calling the Bible "myth" in some places,
not full immersion for baptism,
no papasy to be passed on.
the Church order not to eat meat on Friday,
The Church-forced celebracy for their religious leadeers,
Their calling their religious leaders with religous titles such as 'Father Smith',
the permission to have blood transfusions,
the giving of indulgences, etc.
I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.
I am asking.
Let us take one at a time.
Starting with calling our priests: "Father."

Many Protestants claim that when Catholics address priests as
"father," they are engaging in an unbiblical practice that Jesus
forbade: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father,
who is in heaven" (Matt. 23:9).

one must first understand the use of the word "father" in reference to
our earthly fathers. No one would deny a little girl the opportunity
to tell someone that she loves her father. Common sense tells us that
Jesus wasn’t forbidding this type of use of the word "father."

In fact, to forbid it would rob the address "Father" of its meaning
when applied to God, for there would no longer be any earthly
counterpart for the analogy of divine Fatherhood. The concept of God’s
role as Father would be meaningless if we obliterated the concept of
earthly fatherhood.

But in the Bible the concept of fatherhood is not restricted to just
our earthly fathers and God. It is used to refer to people other than
biological or legal fathers, and is used as a sign of respect to those
with whom we have a special relationship.

For example, Joseph tells his brothers of a special fatherly
relationship God had given him with the king of Egypt: "So it was not
you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh,
and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt" (Gen.
45:8).

Job indicates he played a fatherly role with the less fortunate: "I
was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I
did not know" (Job 29:16). And God himself declares that he will give
a fatherly role to Eliakim, the steward of the house of David: "In
that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah . . . and
I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and
will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to
the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is.
22:20–21).

This type of fatherhood not only applies to those who are wise
counselors (like Joseph) or benefactors (like Job) or both (like
Eliakim), it also applies to those who have a fatherly spiritual
relationship with one. For example, Elisha cries, "My father, my
father!" to Elijah as the latter is carried up to heaven in a
whirlwind (2 Kgs. 2:12). Later, Elisha himself is called a father by
the king of Israel (2 Kgs. 6:21).



A Change with the New Testament?



Some Fundamentalists argue that this usage changed with the New
Testament—that while it may have been permissible to call certain men
"father" in the Old Testament, since the time of Christ, it’s no
longer allowed. This argument fails for several reasons.

First, as we’ve seen, the imperative "call no man father" does not
apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling
one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen
refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks
of "our father Isaac."

Second, there are numerous examples in the New Testament of the term
"father" being used as a form of address and reference, even for men
who are not biologically related to the speaker. There are, in fact,
so many uses of "father" in the New Testament, that the Fundamentalist
interpretation of Matthew 23 (and the objection to Catholics calling
priests "father") must be wrong, as we shall see.

Third, a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that
Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The
whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you
have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your
father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be
called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt.
23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of
the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed
certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make
disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I
have commanded you." Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For
this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the
Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was
appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also
reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has
appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third
teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be
apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers"
(Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s
teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."

Fundamentalists themselves slip up on this point by calling all sorts
of people "doctor," for example, medical doctors, as well as
professors and scientists who have Ph.D. degrees (i.e., doctorates).
What they fail to realize is that "doctor" is simply the Latin word
for "teacher." Even "Mister" and "Mistress" ("Mrs.") are forms of the
word "master," also mentioned by Jesus. So if his words in Matthew 23
were meant to be taken literally, Fundamentalists would be just as
guilty for using the word "teacher" and "doctor" and "mister" as
Catholics for saying "father." But clearly, that would be a
misunderstanding of Christ’s words.

Jesus criticized Jewish leaders who love "the place of honor at feasts
and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market
places, and being called ‘rabbi’ by men" (Matt. 23:6–7). His
admonition here is a response to the Pharisees’ proud hearts and their
grasping after marks of status and prestige.

He was using hyperbole (exaggeration to make a point) to show the
scribes and Pharisees how sinful and proud they were for not looking
humbly to God as the source of all authority and fatherhood and
teaching, and instead setting themselves up as the ultimate
authorities, father figures, and teachers.

Christ used hyperbole often, for example when he declared, "If your
right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is
better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be
thrown into hell" (Matt. 5:29, cf. 18:9; Mark 9:47). Christ certainly
did not intend this to be applied literally, for otherwise all
Christians would be blind amputees! (cf. 1 John 1:8; 1 Tim. 1:15). We
are all subject to "the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and
the pride of life" (1 John 2:16).

Since Jesus is demonstrably using hyperbole when he says not to call
anyone our father—else we would not be able to refer to our earthly
fathers as such—we must read his words carefully and with sensitivity
to the presence of hyperbole if we wish to understand what he is
saying.

Jesus is not forbidding us to call men "fathers" who actually are
such—either literally or spiritually. (See below on the apostolic
example of spiritual fatherhood.) To refer to such people as fathers
is only to acknowledge the truth, and Jesus is not against that. He is
warning people against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a
particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it.

Jesus is not forbidding the perfunctory use of honorifics nor
forbidding us to recognize that the person does have a role as a
spiritual father and teacher. The example of his own apostles shows us
that.
duke
2013-10-07 11:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.
JW's are not Christians because of some strange views they hold about God and
the bible.
Yes, Bible truths may seem strange to some people, such as the absence
of the 'hellfire' doctrine in the Bible (hell is the common grave of
dead mankind)
Jesus well related to those not invited to the Heavenly kingdom as the wheat
hull burned in the village garbage dump.
Post by James
no Purgatory from the Bible,
That would mandate that you are PURE on your own at death.
Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
Post by James
the post-Biblical Trinity doctrine,
I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 1=1+1+1.
Post by James
no Limbo in the Bible,
Right, it was just an assumption, and no longer pushed.
Post by James
no immortality of the "soul", no
kneeling in front of man-made statues, no leaning towards the
evolutionary theory, not all the good people will go to Heaven, most
Bibles have torn out God's name (the Tetragrammaton) from their Bible
translations, calling the Bible "myth" in some places,
Don't know what your problem is here.
Post by James
not full immersion for baptism
No mention of full immersion in the bible.
Post by James
, no papasy to be passed on.
Mat 16:13-19.
Post by James
, the Church order not to eat meat on Friday
Jesus fasted for 40 days.
Post by James
, The Church-forced celebracy for their
religious leadeers,
Nope, priest discipline on themselves.
Post by James
Their calling their religious leaders with
religous titles such as 'Father Smith',
Yep, Paul stated he became our Father thru the gospel
Post by James
the permission to have blood
transfusions,
Not in the Christian Church.
Post by James
the giving of indulgences, etc.
When you ask someone to pray for you, you indulge him.
Post by James
I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.
I'd say you're already dead in the water.
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
James
2013-10-07 20:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.
JW's are not Christians because of some strange views they hold about God and
the bible.
Yes, Bible truths may seem strange to some people, such as the absence
of the 'hellfire' doctrine in the Bible (hell is the common grave of
dead mankind)
Jesus well related to those not invited to the Heavenly kingdom as the wheat
hull burned in the village garbage dump.
Well, not all righteous are to go to Heaven. Jesus said the meek would
inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5) Thus the earth will always have righteous
people on it.

And that garbage dump was called gehenna. And things tossed into there
could never be restored again. It was utter and complete destruction.
No living humans were put there, only dead people or animals, which on
the fringes of the fire, let the maggots and worms etc dispose of the
carcass that wasn't burned with fire.
Post by duke
Post by James
no Purgatory from the Bible,
That would mandate that you are PURE on your own at death.
Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
Obviosly all people sin. Ro 3:23,

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (NIV)

The act of dying removes all of that person's sins. Ro 6:7,23,

"7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 23 For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ
Jesus our Lord." (NIV)

Thus there is no need of a Purgatory. And the last time I was in
Catholic school, they taught me that Purgatory was just like hellfire,
except that after you 'burn' off your sins, you went to Heaven. Sounds
like that god doesn't care much for his righteous followers.

My God resurrects the people in "hell" (hades), both the righteous and
the wicked, and gives them another chance to prove themselves. Those
that fail, are tossed into the SYMBOLIC gehenna where they are
everlastingly not conscience.

And the Catholic Church admits that Purgatory doesn't come from the
Bible, but rather from tradition.
Post by duke
Post by James
the post-Biblical Trinity doctrine,
I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 1=1+1+1.
It is talking about baptism, and about the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. It doesn't say they are 1 in 3. Besides, what is the
NAME of the Holy Spirit? God's name comes from the Tetragrammaton
(YHWH), God's Son's name is Jesus, but the Holy Spirit?

Your statement above isn't very exact. Notice this Catholic Bible: Mt
28:19,20,

"28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy
Spirit,
28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And
behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (NAB)

Notice it says and "of the holy Spirit". Thus it doesn't have a name,
because it is not a person. But like "wisdom", it can be personified.
Post by duke
Post by James
no Limbo in the Bible,
Right, it was just an assumption, and no longer pushed.
Post by James
no immortality of the "soul", no
kneeling in front of man-made statues, no leaning towards the
evolutionary theory, not all the good people will go to Heaven, most
Bibles have torn out God's name (the Tetragrammaton) from their Bible
translations, calling the Bible "myth" in some places,
Don't know what your problem is here.
Post by James
not full immersion for baptism
No mention of full immersion in the bible.
Actually, it is just the opposite. It doesn't show any 'sprinkling' of
water on the person. And no baptizing of babies. The person always had
knowledge of what he was doing.

A careful study of the scriptures shows that sprinkling water NEVER
happened at baptisms. Where it does mention the water aspect, it
always infers an immersion. For example Mr 1:9,10,

"At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by
John in the Jordan.
10. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being
torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." (NIV)

Notice right after Jesus was baptized he was coming "up out of the
water". There was no sprinkling here.

And Joh 3:23 and Ac 8:38,

"Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was
plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized."
(NIV)

"And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the
eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him." (NIV)

Thus baptismal sprinkling of water finds no basis in the Holy
Scriptures.
Post by duke
Post by James
, no papasy to be passed on.
Mat 16:13-19.
It reads: "13. When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he
asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still
others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16. Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17. Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father.
18. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail
against it.
19. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.""

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it. " (NAB)

First, notice here that Jesus called it "my church", not Peter's.

The Greek name for "Peter" (Petros) means "A Piece of Rock". Thus the
Catholics say their church was 'built' upon Peter. But the Bible shows
the true church was built upon Jesus, not Peter. Even Peter himself
admits this. Acts 4:11,

"He is 'the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the
cornerstone.'" (NAB)

The "He" mentioned here is Jesus. (vs 10) So Peter said that Jesus,
not himself, was the main stone or rock from which the church was
built.

Also concerning Mt 16:18, In Greek the gender of the words "Peter" and
"rock" are different. "Peter" (Petros- "a piece of rock") is in the
masculine form, and "rock" (petra- "a mass of rock") is in the
feminine form, showing that the "rock" was not referring back to
Peter.

So then, what was Jesus talking about at Mt 16:18 if he was not
referring to a 'church' being built upon Peter? First, why did Jesus
say "you are Peter"? Look at the context. Vs 15-17,

" 15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16. Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17. Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father." (NAB)

To me, Jesus was using grammatical parallelism here:

Vs 16, "You are the Messiah".
Vs 18, "you are Peter".

Then what is that "rock" that Jesus said "upon this rock" he would
build his church? That particular rock was Jesus himself. Jesus was
referring to himself as being that "mass of rock" (petra). Jesus was
the main rock mass formation that the church would be built upon. Or
as the Scriptures say, he was the "cornerstone", such as the apostle
Paul wrote at Eph 2:20,

"You are built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, and
Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone. " (NJB)

Thus in brief, Jesus was telling Peter that he was but a small piece
of rock built upon a large rock, who was Jesus. Even a respected early
'saint' of the Catholics, Augustine, admitted this in his writings.
Here are the details:

"It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually
referred to as "Saint Augustine," at one time believed that Peter was
the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange's Commentary on the
Holy Scriptures (Mt 16:18, ftn, p. 296) quotes Augustine as saying:
"The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non
enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so
called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the
reason why the Lord says, 'On this rock I will build my church,' is
that Peter had said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my
church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which
also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay,
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."-Translated and edited by P.
Schaff, 1976." (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp. 816,817)

And to conclude, notice this:

"That the apostles did not understand Jesus' statement to signify that
Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later
disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35;
Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had
Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the
congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as
foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including
Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph
2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14)" (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp.
816,817)
Post by duke
Post by James
, the Church order not to eat meat on Friday
Jesus fasted for 40 days.
Jesus didn't eat (and probably didn't drink anything) for those 40
days and nights. Can you say the same?

Also the Bible says not deprive people of foods which God has given to
them to eat. It is one of the teachings of the demons. 1 Ti 4:1-4,

"1. Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will
turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and
demonic instructions
2. through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know
the truth.
4. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be
rejected when received with thanksgiving, " (NAB)
Post by duke
Post by James
, The Church-forced celebracy for their
religious leadeers,
Nope, priest discipline on themselves.
But what if after being a priest for a while, he fell deeply in love
with a woman, and wanted to marry her. Could he still be a priest? If
not, then that is forced celebasy and that is another teachings of the
demons. (see above 1 Ti 4:3)

Get out of that church darkness, and come into the wonderful bright
light of God's word, the Holy Bible.
Post by duke
Post by James
Their calling their religious leaders with
religous titles such as 'Father Smith',
Yep, Paul stated he became our Father thru the gospel
But he never was called "Father Paul". He even at 1 Th 2:7 refers to
himself like a nursing mother caring for her child. Does that mean you
should call Paul 'Mother Paul'?
Post by duke
Post by James
the permission to have blood
transfusions,
Not in the Christian Church.
Then the Church breaks its own command at Acts 15:29,

"namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from
meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep
free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell." (NAB)
Post by duke
Post by James
the giving of indulgences, etc.
When you ask someone to pray for you, you indulge him.
In the past, priests used to SELL indulgences, telliing the person
they would have lessor time in Purgatory (which is not in the Bible)
and get to Heaven quicker.

Recently your Pope said to follow him on the internet, and your time
in Purgatory would be lessened. True, he didn't 'sell' the indulgance,
but never-the-less offered the unscriptural thing to people.

Recently in the news, there was mentioned a place in Rome where if you
climbed some steps that Christ used, you could get 7 years off your
time in Purgatory. Unbelieveable.
Post by duke
Post by James
I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.
I'd say you're already dead in the water.
I responded to your claims with the Bible wherever I could. Just look
them up in your favorite Bible to verify them.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
duke
2013-10-08 12:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.
JW's are not Christians because of some strange views they hold about God and
the bible.
Yes, Bible truths may seem strange to some people, such as the absence
of the 'hellfire' doctrine in the Bible (hell is the common grave of
dead mankind)
Jesus well related to those not invited to the Heavenly kingdom as the wheat
hull burned in the village garbage dump.
Well, not all righteous are to go to Heaven. Jesus said the meek would
inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5) Thus the earth will always have righteous
people on it.
Matthew 18:3 (New International Version)
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little
children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Post by James
And that garbage dump was called gehenna. And things tossed into there
could never be restored again.
Right. Jesus related to the wheat and the hulls, the wheat stored and the hulls
burned in the fire. Jesus spoke in parables, so we'll never know until we
arrive, and their is no return.
Post by James
It was utter and complete destruction.
No living humans were put there, only dead people or animals, which on
the fringes of the fire, let the maggots and worms etc dispose of the
carcass that wasn't burned with fire.
Post by duke
Post by James
no Purgatory from the Bible,
That would mandate that you are PURE on your own at death.
Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
Obviosly all people sin. Ro 3:23,
Not children, nor those that live that way.
Post by James
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (NIV)
The act of dying removes all of that person's sins. Ro 6:7,23,
"7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 23 For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ
Jesus our Lord." (NIV)
That does not say "sins removed". It says "all sinning stops when you die."
Post by James
Thus there is no need of a Purgatory. And the last time I was in
Catholic school, they taught me that Purgatory was just like hellfire,
except that after you 'burn' off your sins, you went to Heaven. Sounds
like that god doesn't care much for his righteous followers.
My God resurrects the people in "hell" (hades), both the righteous and
the wicked, and gives them another chance to prove themselves. Those
that fail, are tossed into the SYMBOLIC gehenna where they are
everlastingly not conscience.
And the Catholic Church admits that Purgatory doesn't come from the
Bible, but rather from tradition.
100% of all Script originated as Tradition. See my Script quotes above.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
the post-Biblical Trinity doctrine,
I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 1=1+1+1.
It is talking about baptism, and about the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. It doesn't say they are 1 in 3.
Yet the bible well stated that Jesus learned all he did from the Father ,and the
Holy Spirit guides on all he received form the Son. God is 3 equal but separate
persons in the triune Godhead.
Post by James
Besides, what is the
NAME of the Holy Spirit? God's name comes from the Tetragrammaton
(YHWH), God's Son's name is Jesus, but the Holy Spirit?
Children's question.
Post by James
Your statement above isn't very exact. Notice this Catholic Bible: Mt
28:19,20,
"28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy
Spirit,
28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And
behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (NAB)
Notice it says and "of the holy Spirit". Thus it doesn't have a name,
because it is not a person. But like "wisdom", it can be personified.
Children's confusion.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
no Limbo in the Bible,
Right, it was just an assumption, and no longer pushed.
Post by James
no immortality of the "soul", no
kneeling in front of man-made statues, no leaning towards the
evolutionary theory, not all the good people will go to Heaven, most
Bibles have torn out God's name (the Tetragrammaton) from their Bible
translations, calling the Bible "myth" in some places,
Don't know what your problem is here.
Post by James
not full immersion for baptism
No mention of full immersion in the bible.
Actually, it is just the opposite. It doesn't show any 'sprinkling' of
water on the person. And no baptizing of babies. The person always had
knowledge of what he was doing.
Nope, but the first men baptized in water were not baptized into the Holy
Spirit. That took place later. Acts 19:5 by the laying on of hands.

Acts 19:5-6 (New International Version)
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul
placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in
tongues[a] and prophesied.

2 Timothy 1:6 (New International Version)
Appeal for Loyalty to Paul and the Gospel
6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in
you through the laying on of my hands.
Post by James
A careful study of the scriptures shows that sprinkling water NEVER
happened at baptisms. Where it does mention the water aspect, it
always infers an immersion. For example Mr 1:9,10,
Sorry, but even the Jews purified by sprinkling.

Hebrews 10:22 (New International Version)
22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that
faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience
and having our bodies washed with pure water.

Ezekiel 36:25 (New International Version)
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you
from all your impurities and from all your idols.
Post by James
"At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by
John in the Jordan.
10. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being
torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." (NIV)
Notice right after Jesus was baptized he was coming "up out of the
water". There was no sprinkling here.
Yeah, maybe he was in ankle deep water. Who knows.
Post by James
And Joh 3:23 and Ac 8:38,
"Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was
plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized."
(NIV)
"And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the
eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him." (NIV)
Nothing about full immersion which, btw, is clearly acceptable..
Post by James
Thus baptismal sprinkling of water finds no basis in the Holy
Scriptures.
You have a bad bible or you don't know what's in it.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
, no papasy to be passed on.
Mat 16:13-19.
It reads: "13. When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he
asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still
others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16. Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17. Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father.
18. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail
against it.
19. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.""
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it. " (NAB)
First, notice here that Jesus called it "my church", not Peter's.
Absolutely. NOBODY even suggests it's Peter's church. Where do you get this
wild idea?
Post by James
The Greek name for "Peter" (Petros) means "A Piece of Rock". Thus the
Catholics say their church was 'built' upon Peter. But the Bible shows
the true church was built upon Jesus, not Peter. Even Peter himself
admits this. Acts 4:11,
Actually, Jeuss called simon as "kephas" which in Aramaic means "rock". There
is no comparable Greek name for "kephas" but the closest is "petra or petros"
meaning a pebble, or a piece of the rock. They settled on "Peter".
Post by James
"He is 'the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the
cornerstone.'" (NAB)
The "He" mentioned here is Jesus. (vs 10) So Peter said that Jesus,
not himself, was the main stone or rock from which the church was
built.
HE is the cornerstone - Jesus - the first stone laid. The full foundation of
the church is Jesus, the apostles and prophets.

Ephesians 2:20 (New International Version)
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus
himself as the chief cornerstone.
Post by James
Also concerning Mt 16:18, In Greek the gender of the words "Peter" and
"rock" are different. "Peter" (Petros- "a piece of rock") is in the
masculine form, and "rock" (petra- "a mass of rock") is in the
feminine form, showing that the "rock" was not referring back to
Peter.
So then, what was Jesus talking about at Mt 16:18 if he was not
referring to a 'church' being built upon Peter? First, why did Jesus
say "you are Peter"? Look at the context. Vs 15-17,
Maybe one day you'll understand that Jesus started a "Church of men", with men
leadership. He himself left us and sent the Holy Spirit to guide his "Church of
Men".

If you think Peter is anything more than the Vicar of Christ (Administrative
Deputy" you're horribly misled.

" 15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Post by James
16. Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17. Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father." (NAB)
Vs 16, "You are the Messiah".
Vs 18, "you are Peter".
Then what is that "rock" that Jesus said "upon this rock" he would
build his church? That particular rock was Jesus himself. Jesus was
referring to himself as being that "mass of rock" (petra). Jesus was
the main rock mass formation that the church would be built upon. Or
as the Scriptures say, he was the "cornerstone", such as the apostle
Paul wrote at Eph 2:20,
"You are built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, and
Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone. " (NJB)
Thus in brief, Jesus was telling Peter that he was but a small piece
of rock built upon a large rock, who was Jesus. Even a respected early
'saint' of the Catholics, Augustine, admitted this in his writings.
"It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually
referred to as "Saint Augustine," at one time believed that Peter was
the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange's Commentary on the
"The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non
enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so
called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the
reason why the Lord says, 'On this rock I will build my church,' is
that Peter had said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my
church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which
also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay,
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."-Translated and edited by P.
Schaff, 1976." (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp. 816,817)
"That the apostles did not understand Jesus' statement to signify that
Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later
disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35;
Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had
Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the
congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as
foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including
Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph
2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14)" (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp.
816,817)
Post by duke
Post by James
, the Church order not to eat meat on Friday
Jesus fasted for 40 days.
Jesus didn't eat (and probably didn't drink anything) for those 40
days and nights. Can you say the same?
No I can't. But my Church, being so much more fully observant of our call to
follow Jesus than yours, called for us to do a "little something" here. So we
Catholics have our own little following jesus in fast and abstinence.
Post by James
Also the Bible says not deprive people of foods which God has given to
them to eat. It is one of the teachings of the demons. 1 Ti 4:1-4,
Our deprivation is "one large meal and 2 small meals" of said day.
Post by James
"1. Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will
turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and
demonic instructions
2. through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know
the truth.
4. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be
rejected when received with thanksgiving, " (NAB)
Post by duke
Post by James
, The Church-forced celebracy for their
religious leadeers,
Nope, priest discipline on themselves.
But what if after being a priest for a while, he fell deeply in love
with a woman, and wanted to marry her. Could he still be a priest?
No he can't. He is still a priest by vow, but no longer worthy of following the
duties of a priest.
Post by James
If
not, then that is forced celebasy and that is another teachings of the
demons. (see above 1 Ti 4:3)
He freely elected to take the vow.
Post by James
Get out of that church darkness, and come into the wonderful bright
light of God's word, the Holy Bible.
God calls us to live the bible, not read it all day.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Their calling their religious leaders with
religous titles such as 'Father Smith',
Yep, Paul stated he became our Father thru the gospel
But he never was called "Father Paul". He even at 1 Th 2:7 refers to
himself like a nursing mother caring for her child. Does that mean you
should call Paul 'Mother Paul'?
He said "I became your Father thru the gospel". God is the only Father in
heaven, but we have many birth fathers and hence our Chruch Fathers are suitably
called.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
the permission to have blood
transfusions,
Not in the Christian Church.
Then the Church breaks its own command at Acts 15:29,
"namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols
No such idol in meat in the RCC.
Post by James
, from blood, from
meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep
free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell." (NAB)
An intelligent reading of Holy Script reveals that the people of the New Way
were trying to decide how to handle Jews converting to the New Way and the
limitations on them.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
the giving of indulgences, etc.
When you ask someone to pray for you, you indulge him.
In the past, priests used to SELL indulgences, telliing the person
they would have lessor time in Purgatory (which is not in the Bible)
and get to Heaven quicker.
When a minister performs your wedding or funeral, it's customary to pay him.
That's an indulgence. As is asking a religious to pray on your behalf for a
loved one. That's an indulgence.
Post by James
Recently your Pope said to follow him on the internet, and your time
in Purgatory would be lessened. True, he didn't 'sell' the indulgance,
but never-the-less offered the unscriptural thing to people.
The Pope advising us to do a spiritual thing by following his words and actions
closely is hardly a violation of scripture. After all, Jesus said "pay
attention".
Post by James
Recently in the news, there was mentioned a place in Rome where if you
climbed some steps that Christ used, you could get 7 years off your
time in Purgatory. Unbelieveable.
More faithful following in the path of Jesus on the way to the cross. It's only
valid in desire. If you make the trek with a bottle of the fruit of the vine in
your belly, you're hardly being spiritual.

I gather in your church that don't teach you to performs godly acts that would
benefit you in your seeking of the kingdom of God.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.
I'd say you're already dead in the water.
I responded to your claims with the Bible wherever I could. Just look
them up in your favorite Bible to verify them.
I'd say youi're definitely dead in the water.
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
James
2013-10-08 18:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
He doesn't understand he's not even a Christian.
Thanks a lot, Duke.
JW's are not Christians because of some strange views they hold about God and
the bible.
Yes, Bible truths may seem strange to some people, such as the absence
of the 'hellfire' doctrine in the Bible (hell is the common grave of
dead mankind)
Jesus well related to those not invited to the Heavenly kingdom as the wheat
hull burned in the village garbage dump.
Well, not all righteous are to go to Heaven. Jesus said the meek would
inherit the earth. (Mt 5:5) Thus the earth will always have righteous
people on it.
Matthew 18:3 (New International Version)
3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little
children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Post by James
And that garbage dump was called gehenna. And things tossed into there
could never be restored again.
Right. Jesus related to the wheat and the hulls, the wheat stored and the hulls
burned in the fire. Jesus spoke in parables, so we'll never know until we
arrive, and their is no return.
Post by James
It was utter and complete destruction.
No living humans were put there, only dead people or animals, which on
the fringes of the fire, let the maggots and worms etc dispose of the
carcass that wasn't burned with fire.
Post by duke
Post by James
no Purgatory from the Bible,
That would mandate that you are PURE on your own at death.
Rev 21:27: "…nothing unclean will enter heaven…"
Mat 5:8: "Blessed are the clean of heart, for they will see God"
Heb 12:14: "strive…for that holiness without which no one will see the Lord".
Mat 5:48: "…be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".
Obviosly all people sin. Ro 3:23,
Not children, nor those that live that way.
See the next line below.
Post by duke
Post by James
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," (NIV)
The act of dying removes all of that person's sins. Ro 6:7,23,
"7 because anyone who has died has been freed from sin. 23 For the
wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ
Jesus our Lord." (NIV)
That does not say "sins removed". It says "all sinning stops when you die."
First it says, all humans sin: "for all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God," (Ro 3:23) Does "all" include children? I would
think it would mean all those who are mature enough to know sin.

Second, it says those who have died are "freed from sin." Here are
some other versions:

"For he that is dead is freed from sin." (KJV)
"For he who has died has been freed from sin." (NKJV)
"for he that hath died is justified from sin." (ASV)
"For he who has died is freed from sin." (RSV)
"A person who dies has been set free from sin." (Simple English)
"For a dead person has been absolved from sin." (NAB)
"For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin." (NWT)

Thus the act of dying absolves one of his sins.
Post by duke
Post by James
Thus there is no need of a Purgatory. And the last time I was in
Catholic school, they taught me that Purgatory was just like hellfire,
except that after you 'burn' off your sins, you went to Heaven. Sounds
like that god doesn't care much for his righteous followers.
My God resurrects the people in "hell" (hades), both the righteous and
the wicked, and gives them another chance to prove themselves. Those
that fail, are tossed into the SYMBOLIC gehenna where they are
everlastingly not conscience.
And the Catholic Church admits that Purgatory doesn't come from the
Bible, but rather from tradition.
100% of all Script originated as Tradition. See my Script quotes above.
But we are not to go beyond the things that are WRITTEN:

"Do not go beyond what is written." (1 Cor 4:6b; NIV)
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
the post-Biblical Trinity doctrine,
I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 1=1+1+1.
It is talking about baptism, and about the name of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit. It doesn't say they are 1 in 3.
Yet the bible well stated that Jesus learned all he did from the Father ,and the
Holy Spirit guides on all he received form the Son. God is 3 equal but separate
persons in the triune Godhead.
Again, that doctrine came along hundreds of years after the Bible had
completed its writings. The aposlte Paul shows us where Jesus stands
when in Heaven. 1 Co 11:3,

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and
the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." (NIV)

And the Holy Spirit is God's active force for accomplishing His will.
Post by duke
Post by James
Besides, what is the
NAME of the Holy Spirit? God's name comes from the Tetragrammaton
(YHWH), God's Son's name is Jesus, but the Holy Spirit?
Children's question.
Then it should be easy to answer. What is it?
Post by duke
Post by James
Your statement above isn't very exact. Notice this Catholic Bible: Mt
28:19,20,
"28:19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy
Spirit,
28:20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And
behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (NAB)
Notice it says and "of the holy Spirit". Thus it doesn't have a name,
because it is not a person. But like "wisdom", it can be personified.
Children's confusion.
See above.
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
no Limbo in the Bible,
Right, it was just an assumption, and no longer pushed.
Post by James
no immortality of the "soul", no
kneeling in front of man-made statues, no leaning towards the
evolutionary theory, not all the good people will go to Heaven, most
Bibles have torn out God's name (the Tetragrammaton) from their Bible
translations, calling the Bible "myth" in some places,
Don't know what your problem is here.
Post by James
not full immersion for baptism
No mention of full immersion in the bible.
Actually, it is just the opposite. It doesn't show any 'sprinkling' of
water on the person. And no baptizing of babies. The person always had
knowledge of what he was doing.
Nope, but the first men baptized in water were not baptized into the Holy
Spirit. That took place later. Acts 19:5 by the laying on of hands.
Acts 19:5-6 (New International Version)
5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 When Paul
placed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in
tongues[a] and prophesied.
It doesn't say they were baptized by sprinkling of a little water in
their heads. It just says they were baptized. And when water is
mentioned concerning baptism, it usually says they 'came up out of the
water' or some such thing. See below.
Post by duke
2 Timothy 1:6 (New International Version)
Appeal for Loyalty to Paul and the Gospel
6 For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in
you through the laying on of my hands.
Post by James
A careful study of the scriptures shows that sprinkling water NEVER
happened at baptisms. Where it does mention the water aspect, it
always infers an immersion. For example Mr 1:9,10,
Sorry, but even the Jews purified by sprinkling.
Christian baptism was not done by sprinkling. It required a large body
of water. Why would they say that if only sprinkling occurred. Also
those baptized were aware of what they were doing and agreed to it.
Babies are incapable of this. It is hard to believe any church can be
so backwards as to not see this in the Holy Bible. (but I am just as
guilty, being a former Catholic)
Post by duke
Hebrews 10:22 (New International Version)
22 let us draw near to God with a sincere heart and with the full assurance that
faith brings, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience
and having our bodies washed with pure water.
Ezekiel 36:25 (New International Version)
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you
from all your impurities and from all your idols.
Post by James
"At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by
John in the Jordan.
10. As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being
torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove." (NIV)
Notice right after Jesus was baptized he was coming "up out of the
water". There was no sprinkling here.
Yeah, maybe he was in ankle deep water. Who knows.
It wouldn't word it that way if Jesus was just in ankle-deep water. It
would say something like he STEPPED out of the water, or walked out of
the water etc. But it says he came UP out of the water. That would be
total emersion.
Post by duke
Post by James
And Joh 3:23 and Ac 8:38,
"Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was
plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized."
(NIV)
"And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the
eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him." (NIV)
Nothing about full immersion which, btw, is clearly acceptable..
Why get near a large body of water, if just some sprinkling was
required. They could do that from just their drinking water they had
with them. No, they were undergoing full emersion.
Post by duke
Post by James
Thus baptismal sprinkling of water finds no basis in the Holy
Scriptures.
You have a bad bible or you don't know what's in it.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
, no papasy to be passed on.
Mat 16:13-19.
It reads: "13. When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he
asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still
others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16. Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17. Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father.
18. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail
against it.
19. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.""
"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build
my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against
it. " (NAB)
First, notice here that Jesus called it "my church", not Peter's.
Absolutely. NOBODY even suggests it's Peter's church. Where do you get this
wild idea?
From Catholics to explain a Papal arrangement.

Thus if one has doubts concerning the supposed 'evidence' of Mt 16:18
of the setting up of a papal structure, and wants to collaborate that
belief with scriptural proof from the Bible, the evidence weighs
against such a system established by Jesus. The main evidence against
it, in summary was:

(1) John was a contemporary of the first four so-called popes, and
makes no mention of them in his writings.

(2) Peter is never given prominence when in the company of other
apostles. (such as titles of "Holy Father", etc)

(3) Peter would not permit others to bow before him. Compare that with
the present (and past) papacy.

(4) Peter never recognized himself as a 'pope', but rather only as 2
Pe 1:1 says, "a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ"

(5) At 1 Pe 2:8, Peter says that the "rock" (petra) is Jesus, not
himself.

(6) None of the other apostles recognized Peter as a 'pope' because
later they were caught arguing among themselves who was the greatest.
(Lu 22:24)

(7) Paul gives no superiority of authority to any one apostle, but
counts all of them as equals. (Eph 2:19,20)
Post by duke
Post by James
The Greek name for "Peter" (Petros) means "A Piece of Rock". Thus the
Catholics say their church was 'built' upon Peter. But the Bible shows
the true church was built upon Jesus, not Peter. Even Peter himself
admits this. Acts 4:11,
Actually, Jeuss called simon as "kephas" which in Aramaic means "rock". There
is no comparable Greek name for "kephas" but the closest is "petra or petros"
meaning a pebble, or a piece of the rock. They settled on "Peter".
As this Catholic encyclopedia says:

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this
rock [Kipha] I will build my church [ekklesian], and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall
be bound also in heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it
shall be loosed also in heaven ". Then he commanded his disciples,
that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ ( Matthew
16:13-20 ; Mark 8:27-30 ; Luke 9:18-21 ).

By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only
Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word
(Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of
but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of
the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias ;
that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be
unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed
in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ."
(http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=9214)

Notice above:
"By the word "rock" the Saviour cannot have meant Himself, but only
Peter"
Post by duke
Post by James
"He is 'the stone rejected by you, the builders, which has become the
cornerstone.'" (NAB)
The "He" mentioned here is Jesus. (vs 10) So Peter said that Jesus,
not himself, was the main stone or rock from which the church was
built.
HE is the cornerstone - Jesus - the first stone laid. The full foundation of
the church is Jesus, the apostles and prophets.
Ephesians 2:20 (New International Version)
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus
himself as the chief cornerstone.
Yes, Jesus is the chief cornerstone, not Peter.
Post by duke
Post by James
Also concerning Mt 16:18, In Greek the gender of the words "Peter" and
"rock" are different. "Peter" (Petros- "a piece of rock") is in the
masculine form, and "rock" (petra- "a mass of rock") is in the
feminine form, showing that the "rock" was not referring back to
Peter.
So then, what was Jesus talking about at Mt 16:18 if he was not
referring to a 'church' being built upon Peter? First, why did Jesus
say "you are Peter"? Look at the context. Vs 15-17,
Maybe one day you'll understand that Jesus started a "Church of men", with men
leadership. He himself left us and sent the Holy Spirit to guide his "Church of
Men".
If you think Peter is anything more than the Vicar of Christ (Administrative
Deputy" you're horribly misled.
Peter thought of himself as one of the apostles, nothing more.
Post by duke
" 15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Post by James
16. Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the
living God."
17. Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father." (NAB)
Vs 16, "You are the Messiah".
Vs 18, "you are Peter".
Then what is that "rock" that Jesus said "upon this rock" he would
build his church? That particular rock was Jesus himself. Jesus was
referring to himself as being that "mass of rock" (petra). Jesus was
the main rock mass formation that the church would be built upon. Or
as the Scriptures say, he was the "cornerstone", such as the apostle
Paul wrote at Eph 2:20,
"You are built upon the foundations of the apostles and prophets, and
Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone. " (NJB)
Thus in brief, Jesus was telling Peter that he was but a small piece
of rock built upon a large rock, who was Jesus. Even a respected early
'saint' of the Catholics, Augustine, admitted this in his writings.
"It is also of interest that Augustine (354-430 C.E.), usually
referred to as "Saint Augustine," at one time believed that Peter was
the rock-mass but later changed his view. Lange's Commentary on the
"The rock is not so named from Peter, but Peter from the rock (non
enim a Petro petra, sed Petrus a petra), even as Christ is not so
called after the Christian, but the Christian after Christ. For the
reason why the Lord says, 'On this rock I will build my church,' is
that Peter had said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.'
On this rock, which thou hast confessed, says he, I will build my
church. For Christ was the rock (petra enim erat Christus), upon which
also Peter himself was built; for other foundation can no man lay,
than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."-Translated and edited by P.
Schaff, 1976." (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp. 816,817)
"That the apostles did not understand Jesus' statement to signify that
Peter was the rock-mass is evident from the fact that they later
disputed about who seemed to be the greatest among them. (Mr 9:33-35;
Lu 22:24-26) There would have been no basis for such disputing had
Peter been given the primacy as the rock-mass on which the
congregation was to be built. The Scriptures clearly show that as
foundation stones, all the apostles are equal. All of them, including
Peter, rest upon Christ Jesus as the foundation cornerstone. (Eph
2:19-22; Re 21:2, 9-14)" (Insight On The Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp.
816,817)
Post by duke
Post by James
, the Church order not to eat meat on Friday
Jesus fasted for 40 days.
Jesus didn't eat (and probably didn't drink anything) for those 40
days and nights. Can you say the same?
No I can't. But my Church, being so much more fully observant of our call to
follow Jesus than yours, called for us to do a "little something" here. So we
Catholics have our own little following jesus in fast and abstinence.
I don't know how you can claim that since the Chruch willfully
violates Jesus' commands such as at Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19b, and
Paul's inspired statement at 2 Cor 10:3,4.

Your (and my former) Church forbids certain foods to not be eaten at
certain times, and enforces celibacy among its clergy. These things
the Bible calls "demonic instructions". As your Bible puts it at 1 Ti
4:1-4,

"1. Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will
turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and
demonic instructions
2. through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know
the truth.
4. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be
rejected when received with thanksgiving," (NAB)

Don't stay in that darkness, but come into God's wonderful light.
Post by duke
Post by James
Also the Bible says not deprive people of foods which God has given to
them to eat. It is one of the teachings of the demons. 1 Ti 4:1-4,
Our deprivation is "one large meal and 2 small meals" of said day.
Post by James
"1. Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will
turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and
demonic instructions
2. through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences.
3. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God
created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know
the truth.
4. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be
rejected when received with thanksgiving, " (NAB)
Post by duke
Post by James
, The Church-forced celebracy for their
religious leadeers,
Nope, priest discipline on themselves.
But what if after being a priest for a while, he fell deeply in love
with a woman, and wanted to marry her. Could he still be a priest?
No he can't. He is still a priest by vow, but no longer worthy of following the
duties of a priest.
Then celibasy is forced on Catholic cleargy, just as 1 Ti 4:3 said
some will "turn away from the faith".
Post by duke
Post by James
If
not, then that is forced celebasy and that is another teachings of the
demons. (see above 1 Ti 4:3)
He freely elected to take the vow.
Post by James
Get out of that church darkness, and come into the wonderful bright
light of God's word, the Holy Bible.
God calls us to live the bible, not read it all day.
I never said anything about reading the Bible all day. All I say is
that the Bible says it is inspired of God, thus the more you know
about it , the more "the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for
every good work." (2 Ti 3:17)
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Their calling their religious leaders with
religous titles such as 'Father Smith',
Yep, Paul stated he became our Father thru the gospel
But he never was called "Father Paul". He even at 1 Th 2:7 refers to
himself like a nursing mother caring for her child. Does that mean you
should call Paul 'Mother Paul'?
He said "I became your Father thru the gospel". God is the only Father in
heaven, but we have many birth fathers and hence our Chruch Fathers are suitably
called.
So what did Jesus mean when he said "Call no one on earth your father,
you have but one Father in heaven."? (Mt 23:9; NAB)
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
the permission to have blood
transfusions,
Not in the Christian Church.
Then the Church breaks its own command at Acts 15:29,
"namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols
No such idol in meat in the RCC.
Post by James
, from blood, from
meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep
free of these, you will be doing what is right. Farewell." (NAB)
An intelligent reading of Holy Script reveals that the people of the New Way
were trying to decide how to handle Jews converting to the New Way and the
limitations on them.
The Jews were expected to act like any new convert. And concerning
abstaining from blood, the Jews already were doing that since it was
part of the Mosaic laws. (see Lev 17:10-14)
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
the giving of indulgences, etc.
When you ask someone to pray for you, you indulge him.
In the past, priests used to SELL indulgences, telliing the person
they would have lessor time in Purgatory (which is not in the Bible)
and get to Heaven quicker.
When a minister performs your wedding or funeral, it's customary to pay him.
If he is a JW, he is not paid. All actions done by JW's are voluntary
and without pay. The only exception is when some JW's study for being
a missionary to be sent to another country, then they are given just
enough money to take care of their needs, such as food and clothing.

All donations are voluntary, and no basket is passed around to
embarrass someone who doesn't have any money. A contribution box is
placed in the back for those who wish to contribute. Some of that
money goes to the missionaries to help them in their missionary
service, etc.
Post by duke
That's an indulgence. As is asking a religious to pray on your behalf for a
loved one. That's an indulgence.
Post by James
Recently your Pope said to follow him on the internet, and your time
in Purgatory would be lessened. True, he didn't 'sell' the indulgance,
but never-the-less offered the unscriptural thing to people.
The Pope advising us to do a spiritual thing by following his words and actions
closely is hardly a violation of scripture. After all, Jesus said "pay
attention".
It is when Purgatory is not from Holy Scripturre.
Post by duke
Post by James
Recently in the news, there was mentioned a place in Rome where if you
climbed some steps that Christ used, you could get 7 years off your
time in Purgatory. Unbelieveable.
More faithful following in the path of Jesus on the way to the cross. It's only
valid in desire. If you make the trek with a bottle of the fruit of the vine in
your belly, you're hardly being spiritual.
I gather in your church that don't teach you to performs godly acts that would
benefit you in your seeking of the kingdom of God.
On the contrary, we are taught to obey the commands in the Holy Bible.
As well as follow the examples of righteous men in the Bible such as
the apostles, including Paul, etc. There is no promise of getting to
Heaven quicker by doing such things. As Paul put it, 'what we do, we
are suppose to do'. (I can't find that verse, manybe you know it)
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.
I'd say you're already dead in the water.
I responded to your claims with the Bible wherever I could. Just look
them up in your favorite Bible to verify them.
I'd say youi're definitely dead in the water.
Yes, on the river to destruction, JW's don't move in those waters. It
is the waters of life that they swim along.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
PATRICK
2013-10-07 20:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
the Church order
not to eat meat on Friday,
I can prove each one of those things, either by the Bible or secular
history etc. If you wish to discuss them a few at a time, just ask.
"ORDER" not to eat meat on Friday?

Fasting, broadly speaking, is the voluntary avoidance of something
that is good. When Catholics talk about fasting, we normally mean
restricting the food that we eat. We can fast between meals, by not
eating snacks, or we can engage in a complete fast by abstaining from
all food. The English word breakfast, in fact, means the meal that
breaks the fast.

While fasting takes the form of refraining from eating, it is
primarily a spiritual discipline designed to tame the body so that we
can concentrate on higher things.

Lenten Fasting and Penance:
Lent, the 40 days before Easter Sunday, is a season of the Church
calendar set aside for Christians to do penance in preparation for the
celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Refraining from food
can help us to bring our bodies under the control of our souls, but it
is also a way of doing penance for past excesses. That is why the
Church strongly recommends that Catholics fast during Lent.

It's easy to find examples of fasting in both the Old and New
Testaments. In Old Testament times, fasting was observed to express
grief. Starting in the New Testament, fasting took on a different
meaning, as a way to focus on God and prayer.

Such a focus was Jesus Christ's intent during his 40-day fast in the
wilderness (Matthew 4:1-2). In preparation for his public ministry,
Jesus intensified his prayer with the addition of fasting.

Today, many Christian churches associate Lent with Moses' 40 days on
the mountain with God, the 40-year journey of the Israelites in the
desert, and Christ's 40-day period of fasting and temptation. Lent is
a period of somber self-examination and penitence in preparation for
Easter.
James
2013-10-05 13:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
I'll let Jesus do the speaking. Mt 23:29-,

" 29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
30. and you say, `If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we
would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.' 31. Thus
you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those
who murdered the prophets;
32. now fill up what your ancestors measured out!
33. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how can you flee from the
judgment of Gehenna? 34. Therefore, behold, I send to you prophets and
wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, some of
them you will scourge in your synagogues and pursue from town to town,
35. so that there may come upon you all the righteous blood shed upon
earth, from the righteous blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the
son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the
altar.
36. Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this
generation. 37. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and
stone those sent to you, how many times I yearned to gather your
children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you
were unwilling!
38. Behold, your house will be abandoned, desolate.

Doesn't sound much like they were God's chosen people then, does it.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-05 19:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
I'll let Jesus do the speaking. Mt 23:29-,
" 29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
Doesn't sound much like they were God's chosen people then, does it.
Little do you know.
As usual.
In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews are the chosen
people, chosen to be in a covenant with God. This idea is first found
in the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh, which are also
included in the Christian Bible) and is elaborated on in later books
of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics in rabbinic
literature. The three largest Jewish denominations—Orthodox Judaism,
Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism—maintain the belief that the
Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose.

The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.

This is not a "spin" or an apologetic, but is a theological and
historical fact. Judaism traces its beginnings to Abraham who,
according to the Bible, was the first human being to recognize the
truth that everything and everyone emanates from the same Source. And
with this recognition comes the call to personal and communal
transformation. Whatever your believe about Abraham -- that he was a
real person, the mythologizing of a tribal chief, or a fabricated
character -- does not matter, because the reality is that Judaism has
understood his story as a call to kindness and hospitality. And while
one can -- and at times ought to -- find serious flaws in Abraham, his
flaws are deliberately shown so we can know that one does not need to
be perfect in order to be of service, and that answering the call will
inevitably lead to personal struggle and mistakes. Abraham is not a
perfect human; he is a human who seeks to be more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html
James
2013-10-06 16:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
I'll let Jesus do the speaking. Mt 23:29-,
" 29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
Doesn't sound much like they were God's chosen people then, does it.
Little do you know.
As usual.
In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews are the chosen
people, chosen to be in a covenant with God. This idea is first found
in the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh, which are also
included in the Christian Bible) and is elaborated on in later books
of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics in rabbinic
literature. The three largest Jewish denominations—Orthodox Judaism,
Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism—maintain the belief that the
Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose.
The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.
This is not a "spin" or an apologetic, but is a theological and
historical fact. Judaism traces its beginnings to Abraham who,
according to the Bible, was the first human being to recognize the
truth that everything and everyone emanates from the same Source. And
with this recognition comes the call to personal and communal
transformation. Whatever your believe about Abraham -- that he was a
real person, the mythologizing of a tribal chief, or a fabricated
character -- does not matter, because the reality is that Judaism has
understood his story as a call to kindness and hospitality. And while
one can -- and at times ought to -- find serious flaws in Abraham, his
flaws are deliberately shown so we can know that one does not need to
be perfect in order to be of service, and that answering the call will
inevitably lead to personal struggle and mistakes. Abraham is not a
perfect human; he is a human who seeks to be more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html
I never said that the Jews were NEVER God's chosen ones, but they blew
it by their constant breaking of God's laws. Jesus finally told them
quite plainly at Mt 23:37,38,

"
"37. `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those
who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
refused!
38. Look! Your house will be deserted,'" (NJB)
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-06 22:13:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 11:20:52 AM UTC-5, James wrote:

"I never said that the Jews were NEVER God's chosen ones, but they blew
it by their constant breaking of God's laws. Jesus finally told them
quite plainly at Mt 23:37,38,"

Romans 11
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved:
as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them,
when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel,
they are enemies for your sakes:
but as touching the election,
they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God
are without repentance.
duke
2013-10-07 11:44:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
I'll let Jesus do the speaking. Mt 23:29-,
" 29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
Doesn't sound much like they were God's chosen people then, does it.
Little do you know.
As usual.
In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews are the chosen
people, chosen to be in a covenant with God. This idea is first found
in the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh, which are also
included in the Christian Bible) and is elaborated on in later books
of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics in rabbinic
literature. The three largest Jewish denominations—Orthodox Judaism,
Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism—maintain the belief that the
Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose.
The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.
This is not a "spin" or an apologetic, but is a theological and
historical fact. Judaism traces its beginnings to Abraham who,
according to the Bible, was the first human being to recognize the
truth that everything and everyone emanates from the same Source. And
with this recognition comes the call to personal and communal
transformation. Whatever your believe about Abraham -- that he was a
real person, the mythologizing of a tribal chief, or a fabricated
character -- does not matter, because the reality is that Judaism has
understood his story as a call to kindness and hospitality. And while
one can -- and at times ought to -- find serious flaws in Abraham, his
flaws are deliberately shown so we can know that one does not need to
be perfect in order to be of service, and that answering the call will
inevitably lead to personal struggle and mistakes. Abraham is not a
perfect human; he is a human who seeks to be more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html
I never said that the Jews were NEVER God's chosen ones, but they blew
it by their constant breaking of God's laws. Jesus finally told them
quite plainly at Mt 23:37,38,
HOw could they blow it when they couldn't understand it? That's why the Levi
priests came up with 639 rules to follow.

YOU...........blow it by rejecting most of the teachings of Jesus.
Post by James
"37. `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those
who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
refused!
38. Look! Your house will be deserted,'" (NJB)
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
James
2013-10-07 19:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge (pick
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
Tell me more about the Jews, the Chosen People.
I'll let Jesus do the speaking. Mt 23:29-,
" 29. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build
the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous,
Doesn't sound much like they were God's chosen people then, does it.
Little do you know.
As usual.
In Judaism, "chosenness" is the belief that the Jews are the chosen
people, chosen to be in a covenant with God. This idea is first found
in the Torah (the first five books of the Tanakh, which are also
included in the Christian Bible) and is elaborated on in later books
of the Hebrew Bible. Much is written about these topics in rabbinic
literature. The three largest Jewish denominations—Orthodox Judaism,
Conservative Judaism and Reform Judaism—maintain the belief that the
Jews have been chosen by God for a purpose.
See Jesus' words below.
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.
Yeah, the world is 'great place' FOR THE DEVIL. (see John 12:31)
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
This is not a "spin" or an apologetic, but is a theological and
historical fact. Judaism traces its beginnings to Abraham who,
according to the Bible, was the first human being to recognize the
truth that everything and everyone emanates from the same Source. And
with this recognition comes the call to personal and communal
transformation. Whatever your believe about Abraham -- that he was a
real person, the mythologizing of a tribal chief, or a fabricated
character -- does not matter, because the reality is that Judaism has
understood his story as a call to kindness and hospitality. And while
one can -- and at times ought to -- find serious flaws in Abraham, his
flaws are deliberately shown so we can know that one does not need to
be perfect in order to be of service, and that answering the call will
inevitably lead to personal struggle and mistakes. Abraham is not a
perfect human; he is a human who seeks to be more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-alan-lurie/jews-gods-chosen-people_b_1079821.html
I never said that the Jews were NEVER God's chosen ones, but they blew
it by their constant breaking of God's laws. Jesus finally told them
quite plainly at Mt 23:37,38,
"
"37. `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those
who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
refused!
38. Look! Your house will be deserted,'" (NJB)
Notice, God has DESERTED the Jews. They are no longer God's chosen
people. Today, spiritual Jews fill that gap. Ro 2:28,29,

"28. One is not a Jew outwardly. True circumcision is not outward, in
the flesh.
29. Rather, one is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart,
in the spirit, not the letter; his praise is not from human beings but
from God." (NAB)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-07 19:53:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by James
"37. `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those
who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
refused!
38. Look! Your house will be deserted,'" (NJB)
Notice, God has DESERTED the Jews. They are no longer God's chosen
people.
The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.
Chosenness continues when the Jews received the 10 commandments at Mt.
Sinai. Again, whether historical fact or fiction matters not one bit,
because we do have the 10 Commandments, and they came to the world
through the Jews.

The jews were chosen for the birth of the Savior. Jews were chosen to
bring to the world this message of goodness: treat the stranger as
one's own, love your fellow as yourself, care for the widow, orphan
and handicapped, give to the poor, know that Spirit is higher than
material success and that you are a child of God, and most
importantly, always value life. In this way, Jews are chosen to be the
lamp that allows God's light to shine in the world.
James
2013-10-08 16:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by James
"37. `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those
who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
refused!
38. Look! Your house will be deserted,'" (NJB)
Notice, God has DESERTED the Jews. They are no longer God's chosen
people.
The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.
Chosenness continues when the Jews received the 10 commandments at Mt.
Sinai. Again, whether historical fact or fiction matters not one bit,
because we do have the 10 Commandments, and they came to the world
through the Jews.
The jews were chosen for the birth of the Savior. Jews were chosen to
bring to the world this message of goodness: treat the stranger as
one's own, love your fellow as yourself, care for the widow, orphan
and handicapped, give to the poor, know that Spirit is higher than
material success and that you are a child of God, and most
importantly, always value life. In this way, Jews are chosen to be the
lamp that allows God's light to shine in the world.
But as Jesus said above, the literal Jews have been as a people,
abandoned by God. Now we have 'spiritual Jews' in their place, just as
Paul mentioned at Ro 2:28,29.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-08 16:29:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by James
"37. `Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you that kill the prophets and stone those
who are sent to you! How often have I longed to gather your children
together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you
refused!
38. Look! Your house will be deserted,'" (NJB)
Notice, God has DESERTED the Jews. They are no longer God's chosen
people.
The Jewish concept of the "Chosen People" is not a badge of
superiority and separation. Quite the contrary: Jewish chosenness is a
humble call to action and responsibility. Jews are chosen much as one
may say to a child: "The room needs cleaning, and I choose you to do
the work; you are my 'chosen' child." In this way, all people are
chosen for something. Jews specifically have been chosen to, or have
chosen to, be of service to others so that the world may be a more
just place.
Chosenness continues when the Jews received the 10 commandments at Mt.
Sinai. Again, whether historical fact or fiction matters not one bit,
because we do have the 10 Commandments, and they came to the world
through the Jews.
The jews were chosen for the birth of the Savior. Jews were chosen to
bring to the world this message of goodness: treat the stranger as
one's own, love your fellow as yourself, care for the widow, orphan
and handicapped, give to the poor, know that Spirit is higher than
material success and that you are a child of God, and most
importantly, always value life. In this way, Jews are chosen to be the
lamp that allows God's light to shine in the world.
But as Jesus said above, the literal Jews have been as a people,
abandoned by God. Now we have 'spiritual Jews' in their place, just as
Paul mentioned at Ro 2:28,29.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Romans 11

25 For I would not, brethren,
that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits;
that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved:
as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer,
and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

27 For this is my covenant unto them,
when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes:
but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

29 For the gifts and calling of God are
without repentance.
duke
2013-10-05 11:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs.
What do you mean the Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Their beliefs came
from God. God gave them the old covenant. And told them to live according to
it.
Post by James
Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge
Exactly what you're doing now.

(pick
Post by James
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
James
2013-10-05 13:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs.
What do you mean the Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Their beliefs came
from God. God gave them the old covenant. And told them to live according to
it.
They twisted the Scriptures to fit their own selfish agendas. Read all
the 'woes' Jesus said to them at Mt 13:23-37.
Post by duke
Post by James
Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge
Exactly what you're doing now.
I believe and stand by Jesus' words.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Post by duke
(pick
Post by James
out a small bit of debree in another's eye, But slow to self examine
themselves (pick the rafter out of their own eyes. It is a small
wonder that they lasted as long as they did under God's laws.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
PATRICK
2013-10-05 19:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs.
What do you mean the Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Their beliefs came
from God. God gave them the old covenant. And told them to live according to
it.
They twisted the Scriptures to fit their own selfish agendas. Read all
the 'woes' Jesus said to them at Mt 13:23-37.
Jesus spoke to the Jews as you speak to your children.
If you cannot equate the discussion, then you are lost.
duke
2013-10-06 12:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Post by duke
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:21:58 -0700, Moses
Post by Moses
Post by James
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Fuck that. Remember when the Israelis surrounded Jericho and killed
everyone in the city? That is what the mighty God wants us to do to each
other.
Jesus was a liar who thought he was God and could forgive sin. What a
liar!
This from a dude whose guys went to the mountain top and committed suicide
rather than fight to protect themselves..
The Jews were messed up in their beliefs.
What do you mean the Jews were messed up in their beliefs. Their beliefs came
from God. God gave them the old covenant. And told them to live according to
it.
They twisted the Scriptures to fit their own selfish agendas. Read all
the 'woes' Jesus said to them at Mt 13:23-37.
And what is more out of line with what God said to them than you, for instance.

God gave them 10 commandments, and the Levi priests make up 639 laws to use as a
guide to measure success in following the 10 commandments. And they were not
good at that.

Fast forward, Jesus gave us the New Way, and yet your own church refuses to
follow them.

Where is the difference.
Post by James
Post by duke
Post by James
Jesus tried to set them
straight, but they were too stuborn. They were quick to judge
Exactly what you're doing now.
I believe and stand by Jesus' words.
No, you don't. Being a JW means that. Christians profess Jesus as true man
and true God. You reject that and believe that he is only man, not divine.
Post by James
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
PATRICK
2013-10-02 19:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
As America turns to God for guidance and strength in the war on
terrorism, its actions must be shaped by God's rules for when and how
military action may be taken -- what Catholic theology calls just war
doctrine. It is important that ordinary citizens be informed about
these rules so they can help inform our leaders at key junctures
through the democratic process.
In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt.
5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us "if any one
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt.
5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a
pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.
But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force,
telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and
buy one" (Luke 22:36).

In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote
peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But
they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not
be allowed to remain unchecked.

Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that
Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16).
This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New
Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.

The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill"
(Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded
the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was
always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for.
Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers
dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be
achieved without force, force must be used.

In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but
acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the
Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to
enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs
(Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear
the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4).

JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
says:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.

http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-02 19:49:58 UTC
Permalink
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.



Bearing Arms
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/paul-green/romans-13-and-the-right-to-beararms/

For some, it may take a while to reprogram the mind when reading the passage. But once these simple basics are known, Romans 13 proves to be one of the strongest scriptures upholding the right to armed defense of person or property. The key verse here being:

“But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”

That verse is the bases of Just War theory.
James
2013-10-05 13:43:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Bearing Arms
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/paul-green/romans-13-and-the-right-to-beararms/
“But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”
That verse is the bases of Just War theory.
The laws in Romans (and Titus) was for the Christians to obey. Not
that they would enforce those laws. Otherwise you would have to throw
out Jesus' words at Mt 5:44, Mt 19:19, Mt 26:52 and Paul's inspired
statements at 2 Co 10:3.4.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-05 16:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
Bearing Arms
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/04/paul-green/romans-13-and-the-right-to-beararms/
“But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”
That verse is the bases of Just War theory.
The laws in Romans (and Titus) was for the Christians to obey. Not
that they would enforce those laws. Otherwise you would have to throw
out Jesus' words at Mt 5:44, Mt 19:19, Mt 26:52 and Paul's inspired
statements at 2 Co 10:3.4.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
" John the baptist was asked specifically by soldiers what they should do.
Luke 3 14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what
shall we do?
A direct question and John didn't say leave the military.



Acts Chapter 10
1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius,
a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house,
which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

...

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Gee! A centurion gets baptized and not told
to leave the military.


Romans 13 says government is ordained to fight
evil which is why God ordered Israel to fight
the Canaanites.

Deut 12:31
..for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods..

We are only to fight in just wars,per Romans 13.

Romans 13
4...a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Malachi 3:6
For I am the Lord, I change not;
therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Of course,you can ignore those Scriptures
which the "good" Germans did to their shame.
•RLMeasures
2013-10-02 22:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
James
2013-10-05 13:45:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
•RLMeasures
2013-10-05 21:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
PATRICK
2013-10-06 17:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
Don't try to confuse the boy with facts....
•RLMeasures
2013-10-06 20:32:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
Don't try to confuse the boy with facts....
€€ it's in my game plan.
PATRICK
2013-10-06 23:18:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
Don't try to confuse the boy with facts....
€€ it's in my game plan.
chortle
James
2013-10-06 20:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
What about the 491st time?


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-06 23:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
What about the 491st time?
What does the Bible say?
You only use that as your guide, as misguided as you are.
•RLMeasures
2013-10-07 14:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
What about the 491st time?
€€ 491 is a hell of a lot of cute altar boys James. I've never heard of
any pedo-priest going over 200. Not even Fr Paul R. Shanley broke 200.
James
2013-10-07 21:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
What about the 491st time?
€€ 491 is a hell of a lot of cute altar boys James. I've never heard of
any pedo-priest going over 200. Not even Fr Paul R. Shanley broke 200.
I am just fooling around. Jesus meant to forgive others as many times
that they sin against you. He didn't mean any specific max number.
The Bible uses the word "seven" to mean something in its entirety. Or
as this Bible encyclopedia says,

"Seven. Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify
completeness" (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, p. 512)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
•RLMeasures
2013-10-07 22:53:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
What about the 491st time?
€€ 491 is a hell of a lot of cute altar boys James. I've never heard of
any pedo-priest going over 200. Not even Fr Paul R. Shanley broke 200.
I am just fooling around. Jesus meant to forgive others as many times
that they sin against you. He didn't mean any specific max number.
€€ even though he said a specific number? For me it does not take more
than 5 or 6 times to throw in the towel on miscreants, although I have
gone an extra mile with #4 and especially with #6 of my helper girls.
Post by James
The Bible uses the word "seven" to mean something in its entirety.
€€ So if you pull up near empty to a gasoline pump in Judaea, just say
"seven" when they ask you how much ? Thanks. I would never have firgured
this out.
Post by James
Or
as this Bible encyclopedia says,
"Seven. Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify
completeness" (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, p. 512)
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
€€ to me seven always means one more than six.
James
2013-10-08 19:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
military and kill the enemy? The head of all Christian
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
€€ loving neighbors has caused plenty of splits here in SoCal.
It is better to have 'splits' that be on the bad side of Jesus. Lu
6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
€€ Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.
What about the 491st time?
€€ 491 is a hell of a lot of cute altar boys James. I've never heard of
any pedo-priest going over 200. Not even Fr Paul R. Shanley broke 200.
I am just fooling around. Jesus meant to forgive others as many times
that they sin against you. He didn't mean any specific max number.
€€ even though he said a specific number? For me it does not take more
than 5 or 6 times to throw in the towel on miscreants, although I have
gone an extra mile with #4 and especially with #6 of my helper girls.
Post by James
The Bible uses the word "seven" to mean something in its entirety.
€€ So if you pull up near empty to a gasoline pump in Judaea, just say
"seven" when they ask you how much ? Thanks. I would never have firgured
this out.
Just make sure you hide your AK 47 assault rifle while in that
dangerous territory.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by James
Or
as this Bible encyclopedia says,
"Seven. Seven is used frequently in the Scriptures to signify
completeness" (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2, p. 512)
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
€€ to me seven always means one more than six.
Really? I always thought of it as 2 more than 5, or 3 more than 4
or....


The Bible uses numbers to have some special meanings. For another
example, the number 4. (one more than three.):

"Four. Four is a number sometimes expressing universalness or
foursquareness in symmetry and form. It is found three times at
Revelation 7:1. Here the “four angels” (all those in charge of “the
four winds,” ready for complete destruction) stood on earth’s “four
corners” (they could let loose the winds obliquely or diagonally, and
no quarter of the earth would be spared). (Compare Da 8:8; Isa 11:12;
Jer 49:36; Zec 2:6; Mt 24:31.) The New Jerusalem is “foursquare,”
equal in every dimension, being in fact cubical in shape. (Re 21:16)
Other figurative expressions using the number four are found at
Zechariah 1:18-21; 6:1-3; Revelation 9:14, 15." (Insight on the
Scriptures, Vol 2, p. 512)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-08 20:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Jehovah’s Witnesses and child abuse within
http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/childhood-abuses/child-abuse-or-tradition/jehovahs-witnesses-and-child-abuse-within/

When child abuse is suspected within a congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, “elders” in the church have a “child protection policy” to follow.
This involves reporting the matter to the church’s own legal desk – but not necessarily to the police. The organisation’s strict biblical interpretation means not only that the matter often remains a secret within the organisation, but also that victims can be sent back home to the abusive enviroment which they have complained of.
The Watchtower theocratic system as actually enabled paedophiles to continue to exploit children over and over. They hide these people in files that no one can see and try to use the “clergy penitent privilege” to justify NOT giving the names of Paedophiles to the authorities. You see, when a Jehovah’s Witness is faced with this problem, they are told to go to the elders first, not the police, and then let the elders make the decision.
So they do that and bring their child to the elders to explain and the elders hear the story and then bring in the accused. If the accused denies the charges, they leave it up to “Jehovah” to bring it out and go no further, unless there are witnesses. But in reality just how many witnesses are there for child abuse? In almost all cases just the victim and the abuser themselves. So here lies the problem.
What struck me was the lengths to which the Watchtower Society will go to deny or cover up allegations of sexual abuse within their Church. The article states:
Many have criticized the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ policy that if an accused abuser denies the charge, two credible witnesses are required to establish guilt — due to literal application of suchBible verses as Deuteronomy 19:15 (“only on the evidence of two witnesses, or of three witnesses, shall a charge be sustained”).
If two witnesses are lacking, the accused is deemed innocent, charges remain confidential and — silentlambs says — parents who warn others are subject to disfellowshipping for slander.
Disfellowshipping is an extreme penalty that means a total cutoff of relationships by family members, friends and business associates who are Witnesses.
Sexual abuse is a crime of secrecy. Since most sexual abusers do not commit their criminal acts in the presence of witnesses the “two witnesses” requirement is one that would be next to impossible to meet.
To go even further by threatening victims who want to warn others of sexual abusers with being cut off from their family, friends and associates (the persons victims would turn to for help and support after being victimized) is perhaps an even greater betrayal than the sexual abuse itself.
Secret database protects paedophiles/child abusers and sex offenders
The Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation keeps a sex offenders register that nobody outside the church is allowed to see
Bill Bowen, who has spent his lifetime as a Jehovah’s Witness and nearly twenty years as an elder, says the organisation covers up abuse by keeping this database secret. His sources indicate there are at least 23,720 abusers on the list – who are protected by the system.
“They [the Jehovah's Witnesses] do not want people to know that they have this problem”. He continues, ”And by covering it up they just hurt one person. By letting it out, then they hurt the image of the church.”
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-07 22:02:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sunday, October 6, 2013 3:59:58 PM UTC-5, James wrote:

"Jesus also said to forgive 70 x 7 times.

What about the 491st time?"

Was this the 491st time?

Jehovah’s Witnesses hushed up child sex scandal
http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/jehovah-s-witnesses-hushed-up-child-sex-scandal-1-5858460

CHURCH officials hushed up a child sex scandal in their ranks and refused to co-operate with police.

Jehovah Witness ministerial servant Gordon Leighton admitted sexually abusing a child when he was confronted by his church elders, a court heard.

But during the official police investigation, the 53-year-old – who made headlines in the 1990s when wife Yvonne, 28, died after refusing a blood transfusion after childbirth on religious grounds – denied any illegal wrongdoing.

And when detectives asked elders Simon Preyser, Harry Logan and David Scott to make statements about the confession, all three refused and said what they had heard was confidential.

For three years, the elders refused to co-operate with the criminal investigation and kept up that stance when the case was brought before Newcastle Crown Court after the victim made a complaint to police.

Each was issued with a witness summons which they fought to overturn before being ordered to testify by Judge Penny Moreland citing public interest.

Their barrister Richard Daniels said the men had a “duty to God” not to breach confidence.

He added: “Privileged communication between members of the congregation and ministers is an absolute right and duty and there is no power in law to breach such a confidence.”

Judge Moreland said: “It is apparent that the three elders who were present when this conversation took place are in possession of relevant evidence as to a point which is of real significance in this case.

“They claim the right of confidentiality, they claim that what they heard said by the defendant during the course of that meeting ought to be subject to privilege, as ministers of religion.”

Judge Moreland refused to withdraw the summonses and said: “Public interest is clearly in favour of this evidence being given.

“What was said by the defendant on that occasion is of great significance in the trial.”

Despite the judge’s ruling, the men still refused to make statements to police until just hours before they were called before the jury.

Leighton, who has since been expelled from the church at Lambton Kingdom Hall in Washington, denied two charges of indecency with a child and seven of indecent assault.

He was yesterday found guilty of two charges of indecency with a child and six of indecent assault. He was found not guilty of one indecent assault charge, on the direction of the judge.

He was remanded in custody until he is sentenced next month but warned he is facing a lengthy spell behind bars.

Prosecutor Katherine Dunn told the court the victim, who is now an adult, broke her silence in 2009.

The court heard how at a special church meeting, Leighton “admitted sexual abuse” and made excuses for his behaviour.

Miss Dunn said: “The elders conducted their own investigation. A meeting was arranged and the defendant was confronted with the allegations.

“After initially denying the allegations, he broke down and admitted sexually abusing the complainant.”

The court heard Leighton, of Wigeon Close, Ayton, refused to answer any questions when interviewed by detectives and claimed his confession at the meeting was limited to masturbation and reading pornographic material.

Throughout the six-day trial, Leighton denied all allegations and that he had confessed to the elders, telling jurors: “It never happened. It’s all untrue.”

Leighton had also denied unrelated assault charges, which he was found guilty of.
James
2013-10-03 15:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
As America turns to God for guidance and strength in the war on
terrorism, its actions must be shaped by God's rules for when and how
military action may be taken -- what Catholic theology calls just war
doctrine. It is important that ordinary citizens be informed about
these rules so they can help inform our leaders at key junctures
through the democratic process.
In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt.
5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us "if any one
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt.
5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a
pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.
But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force,
telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and
buy one" (Luke 22:36).
In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote
peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But
they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not
be allowed to remain unchecked.
Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that
Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16).
This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New
Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.
The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill"
(Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded
the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was
always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for.
Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers
dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be
achieved without force, force must be used.
In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but
acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the
Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to
enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs
(Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear
the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4).
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.

Since the Bible is inspired of God, you can't have your cake and eat
it to. 2 Ti 3:16,

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)

You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT; They were under
Mosaic law then, and had to obey God. That Law has been fulfilled by
Christ's death. Col 2:14,

"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was
against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it
to the cross." (NIV)

Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-03 16:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
As America turns to God for guidance and strength in the war on
terrorism, its actions must be shaped by God's rules for when and how
military action may be taken -- what Catholic theology calls just war
doctrine. It is important that ordinary citizens be informed about
these rules so they can help inform our leaders at key junctures
through the democratic process.
In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt.
5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us "if any one
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt.
5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a
pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.
But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force,
telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and
buy one" (Luke 22:36).
In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote
peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But
they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not
be allowed to remain unchecked.
Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that
Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16).
This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New
Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.
The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill"
(Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded
the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was
always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for.
Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers
dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be
achieved without force, force must be used.
In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but
acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the
Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to
enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs
(Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear
the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4).
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
God sent us to take care of matters.
He was busy stirring up hurricanes.
Post by James
Since the Bible is inspired of God, you can't have your cake and eat
it to. 2 Ti 3:16,
OK then.
I won't have my cake and eat it too....
Or.... hey, wait a minute....
Yes I can.
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
OK then.
Scripture is useful.
I agree.
Post by James
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
They were under
Mosaic law then, and had to obey God.
Who was?
Post by James
That Law has been fulfilled by
Christ's death. Col 2:14,
Which law?
Post by James
"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was
against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it
to the cross." (NIV)
Is that the New Satan Version?
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
2 Co 10: 6 --we are ready to punish every disobedience, once your
obedience is complete.
James
2013-10-04 15:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
1) Love and pray for our enemies.
2) Love your neighbors;
3) if use war weapons, will die by war weapons.
<yawn>
As America turns to God for guidance and strength in the war on
terrorism, its actions must be shaped by God's rules for when and how
military action may be taken -- what Catholic theology calls just war
doctrine. It is important that ordinary citizens be informed about
these rules so they can help inform our leaders at key junctures
through the democratic process.
In the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us "blessed are the peacemakers" (Matt.
5:9). Elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount he tells us "if any one
strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt.
5:39). From such verses some have concluded that Christianity is a
pacifist religion and that violence is never permitted.
But the same Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force,
telling the apostles, "let him who has no sword sell his mantle and
buy one" (Luke 22:36).
In broad terms, Christians must not love violence. They must promote
peace whenever possible and be slow to resort to the use of arms. But
they must not be afraid to do so when it is called for. Evil must not
be allowed to remain unchecked.
Added weight is given to this realization when one recognizes that
Scripture -- all of Scripture -- is inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16).
This means that the Old Testament is just as inspired as the New
Testament and thus an expression of the will of Christ.
The Old Testament acknowledges frankly that there is "a time to kill"
(Eccles. 3:3). At various times in the Old Testament, God commanded
the Israelites to defend their nation by force of arms. Yet it was
always with the recognition that peace is the goal to be worked for.
Thus the psalmist exclaims, "how good and pleasant it is when brothers
dwell in unity!" (Ps. 133:1). Peace is the goal, but when it cannot be
achieved without force, force must be used.
In the same way, the New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but
acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the
Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to
enforce the Pax Romana, or "Peace of Rome," could keep their jobs
(Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state "does not bear
the sword in vain" but is "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4).
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.

Since the Bible is inspired of God, you can't have your cake and eat
it to. 2 Ti 3:16,

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)

You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT; They were under
Mosaic law then, and had to obey God. That Law has been fulfilled by
Christ's death. Col 2:14,

"having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was
against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it
to the cross." (NIV)

Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)

See above how genuine Christians must obey Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt
19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.

Otherwise you get Jesus saying to you: Mt 7:21-23,

"21 Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not
prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform
many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, `I never knew you.
Away from me, you evildoers!'" (NIV)


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org



James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-04 18:02:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
Post by James
Since the Bible is inspired of God, you can't have your cake and eat
it to. 2 Ti 3:16,
Yes, I can.
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
Useful for teaching.
Post by James
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
You need to read more on Paul.
And Jesus.
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus
in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
Post by James
"21 Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven.
Looks like you will be left out then.
•RLMeasures
2013-10-05 08:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it."
- - - Joseph Goebbels
PATRICK
2013-10-05 12:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.

A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel. History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
Christians were engaged in one of the most basic of human activities:
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."

These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death. Eventually some
stories were written down. The first written documents probably
included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings
attributed to him.

Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the
first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus. We will
never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark,
since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written
works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to
first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated
the gospel tradition.

While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the
growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke
composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the
time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected
in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the
words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of
disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells
a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story
that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that
has such awful repercussions in later times."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html
•RLMeasures
2013-10-05 20:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Post by PATRICK
Eventually some
stories were written down. The first written documents probably
included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings
attributed to him.
Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the
first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus.
€ the trouble with Jesus' teachings is that he was a critic of holy men
and the salvation machinery they create to dupe the gullible.
Post by PATRICK
We will
never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark,
since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written
works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to
first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated
the gospel tradition.
€ I would not call it genius, I would call it insightful.
Post by PATRICK
While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the
growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke
composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the
time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected
in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the
words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of
disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells
a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story
that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that
has such awful repercussions in later times."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-06 03:53:39 UTC
Permalink
On Saturday, October 5, 2013 3:55:04 PM UTC-5, •RLMeasures wrote:

€ The first Gospel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE."

Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke:
A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem
by John Wenham (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Redating-Matthew-Mark-Luke-Synoptic/dp/0830817603

A good alternative to the "Q" hypothesis.
By Shawn W. Gillogly
Wenham's work is, as noted above, thoroughly documented, researched and conducted. And I would go further than the earlier review. If you don't have a working knowledge of Greek, this will probably be too painful for you.
However, I would say it rewards careful reading of the one willing to examine the issue without buying into the current dogmas of NT scholarship. I did not find him uncritically assuming his own evidence true, rather in several places I recall him saying he would not dogmatically assert either way. The point is to him much of the evidence can be used to support whatever theory one wishes to contrive. "Q" can be made to look reasonable to many, as can Markan priority, if we don't examine the facts behind WHY these works were written.
As to counting Patristic evidence, one could say NT scholarship today dogmatically REJECTS Patristic evidence whenever it doesn't fit their hypothesis. Who's to say that scholars sitting in their offices 2000 years removed automatically have a better concept of the events than 2nd & 3rd century scholars? Am I attacking all NT scholarship? No. But I think it is fair to give the author a reasonable hearing. And I think, after a reasonable hearing, it is not unreasonable to see at least Matthew and Mark written before AD55, and see some measure of MUTUAL dependance between the Gospels.
Neither of these would be fashionable in many NT circles today. But that doesn't mean they are not real possiblities.


Redating the New Testament:
John A.T. Robinson (Author)


A Title That Deserves Reprinting
By E. T. Veal VINE VOICE
http://www.amazon.com/Redating-Testament-John-A-T-Robinson/dp/1579105270

What a pity that this pathbreaking work is out of print while publishers flood the bookstores with fantasy-as-history in an unending stream.
Bishop Robinson, a theological modernist whose "Honest to God" made him controversial within the Anglican communion, began this book as what he labels "a theological joke": "I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70", the year in which the Roman army sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem. As it turned out, he got much further than he had ever expected, a journey made more impressive by his lack of any predisposition toward a "conservative" point of view.

His conclusion is that there is no compelling evidence - indeed, little evidence of any kind - that anything in the New Testament canon reflects knowledge of the Temple's destruction. Furthermore, other considerations point consistently toward early dates and away from the common assumption (a prejudice with a seriously circular foundation) that a majority of primitive Christian authors wrote in the very late First or early-to-middle Second Century under assumed names.

For want of data, absolute proof of Robinson's thesis is impossible, and the weight of his arguments varies - from overwhelming in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews through powerful (the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles of John) to merely strong (the Pastoral Epistles, the non-Johannine Catholic Epistles and Revelation).

In a postscript, Robinson reconsiders the dates of several subapostolic works: The Clementine Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache, the accepted dates for which range from the 90's to the latter half of the Second Century.

Lets quote
an author from the 2nd who heard Polycarp in his youth and
Polycarp knew the Apostle John, Irenaeus of Lyons.


"So Matthew ... issued a writing of the gospel...Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome...after their decease, Mark, the
disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what Peter


had preached. Then Luke, the follower of Paul, recorded in a book
the gospel as it was preached by him. Finally John, the disciple of the


Lord,
who had also lain on his breast, himself published the Gospel,
while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia."


"Early Christian Fathers", Cyril C. Richardson, P 370
PATRICK
2013-10-06 17:52:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Well, stop doing it then.
You are the one who is trying to spin the story HERE.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Read what I stated right below this.
Story telling - this was common when passing on history.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Then, they are not "oral traditions" then.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Eventually some
stories were written down. The first written documents probably
included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings
attributed to him.
Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the
first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus.
€ the trouble with Jesus' teachings is that he was a critic of holy men
and the salvation machinery they create to dupe the gullible.
He was not a critic of holy men.
Jesus used to quote holy men.
He met with Moses and Elijah at one point.
He used to criticize hypocritical Pharisees and scribes who pretended
to be holy men.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
We will
never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark,
since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written
works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to
first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated
the gospel tradition.
€ I would not call it genius, I would call it insightful.
Too-may-toe.... Toe - mah-toe.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the
growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke
composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the
time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected
in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the
words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of
disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells
a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story
that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that
has such awful repercussions in later times."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html
•RLMeasures
2013-10-06 20:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Well, stop doing it then.
You are the one who is trying to spin the story HERE.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Read what I stated right below this.
Story telling - this was common when passing on history.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Then, they are not "oral traditions" then.
€ so if it turns out to be questionable it is retroactively
un-oral-traditioned? This sounds kind of like the infallable/ex-cathedra
thing.
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Eventually some
stories were written down. The first written documents probably
included an account of the death of Jesus and a collection of sayings
attributed to him.
Then, in about the year 70, the evangelist known as Mark wrote the
first "gospel" -- the words mean "good news" about Jesus.
€ the trouble with Jesus' teachings is that he was a critic of holy men
and the salvation machinery they create to dupe the gullible.
He was not a critic of holy men.
Jesus used to quote holy men.
He met with Moses and Elijah at one point.
He used to criticize hypocritical Pharisees and scribes who pretended
to be holy men.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
We will
never know the writer's real identity, or even if his name was Mark,
since it was common practice in the ancient world to attribute written
works to famous people. But we do know that it was Mark's genius to
first to commit the story of Jesus to writing, and thereby inaugurated
the gospel tradition.
€ I would not call it genius, I would call it insightful.
Too-may-toe.... Toe - mah-toe.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
While the gospels tell a story about Jesus, they also reflect the
growing tensions between Christians and Jews. By the time Luke
composed his work, tension was breaking into open hostility. By the
time John was written, the conflict had become an open rift, reflected
in the vituperative invective of the evangelist's language. In the
words of Prof. Eric Meyers, "Most of the gospels reflect a period of
disagreement, of theological disagreement. And the New Testament tells
a story of a broken relationship, and that's part of the sad story
that evolves between Jews and Christians, because it is a story that
has such awful repercussions in later times."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/mmfour.html
PATRICK
2013-10-06 23:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Well, stop doing it then.
You are the one who is trying to spin the story HERE.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Read what I stated right below this.
Story telling - this was common when passing on history.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Then, they are not "oral traditions" then.
€ so if it turns out to be questionable it is retroactively
un-oral-traditioned? This sounds kind of like the infallable/ex-cathedra
thing.
Can a person be partially pregnant?
•RLMeasures
2013-10-07 14:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they made up
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Well, stop doing it then.
You are the one who is trying to spin the story HERE.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Read what I stated right below this.
Story telling - this was common when passing on history.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Then, they are not "oral traditions" then.
€ so if it turns out to be questionable it is retroactively
un-oral-traditioned? This sounds kind of like the infallable/ex-cathedra
thing.
Can a person be partially pregnant?
€ surely PB. It lasts at least 8-months. IOW it means about the same
thing as "slightly Pregnant".
PATRICK
2013-10-07 19:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they
made up
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Well, stop doing it then.
You are the one who is trying to spin the story HERE.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Read what I stated right below this.
Story telling - this was common when passing on history.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Then, they are not "oral traditions" then.
€ so if it turns out to be questionable it is retroactively
un-oral-traditioned? This sounds kind of like the infallable/ex-cathedra
thing.
Can a person be partially pregnant?
€ surely PB. It lasts at least 8-months. IOW it means about the same
thing as "slightly Pregnant".
ARGHHH...
•RLMeasures
2013-10-07 22:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by j***@satx.rr.com
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
€ For the RCC, the NT gospels were not what they needed so they
made up
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
Post by •RLMeasures
stuff, added spin, and in time people began to believe it.
That is yer story, and yer stickin ta it.
€ trying to change or cancel history is a tall order.
Well, stop doing it then.
You are the one who is trying to spin the story HERE.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
A period of forty years separates the death of Jesus from the writing
of the first gospel.
€ The first gopel is thought to be Mark's, which was written c, 45CE.
Jesus was executed c. 28CE.
Read what I stated right below this.
Story telling - this was common when passing on history.
Post by •RLMeasures
Post by PATRICK
History offers us little direct evidence about
the events of this period, but it does suggest that the early
story-telling. In the words of Mike White, "It appears that between
the death of Jesus and the writing of the first gospel, Mark, that
they clearly are telling stories. They're passing on the tradition of
what happened to Jesus, what he stood for and what he did, orally, by
telling it and retelling it. And in the process they are defining
Jesus for themselves."
These shared memories, passed along by word of mouth, are known as
"oral tradition." They included stories of Jesus' miracles and
healings, his parables and teachings, and his death.
€ some "oral traditions" turn out be fiction.
Then, they are not "oral traditions" then.
€ so if it turns out to be questionable it is retroactively
un-oral-traditioned? This sounds kind of like the infallable/ex-cathedra
thing.
Can a person be partially pregnant?
€ surely PB. It lasts at least 8-months. IOW it means about the same
thing as "slightly Pregnant".
ARGHHH...
€ that's life as we know it. It's how we got here.
James
2013-10-05 13:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
Then make would make Paul a liar here. 2 Ti 3:16,17,

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for
every good work." (NAB)
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Since the Bible is inspired of God, you can't have your cake and eat
it to. 2 Ti 3:16,
Yes, I can.
Yes, but you can choke on it.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
Useful for teaching.
"...and for
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
You need to read more on Paul.
And Jesus.
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus
in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
The main point being pay taxes to Caesar when he calls for it. Not to
go to war when he calls for it. Refusing is payment back to God for
obeying Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.

You can't just pick and choose which commandments to follow and which
to ignore.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
"21 Not everyone who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in
heaven.
Looks like you will be left out then.
Perhaps if I fail to follow God's laws such as at Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52,
Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-05 19:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
Then make would make Paul a liar here. 2 Ti 3:16,17,
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for
every good work." (NAB)
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
Useful for teaching.
"...and for
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
You need to read more on Paul.
And Jesus.
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus
in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
The main point being pay taxes to Caesar when he calls for it. Not to
go to war when he calls for it. Refusing is payment back to God for
obeying Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.
You can't just pick and choose which commandments to follow and which
to ignore.
Which commandment speaks against a Just War doctrine?
Just war theory (or Bellum iustum) is a doctrine of military ethics of
Roman philosophical and Catholic origin, studied by moral theologians,
ethicists and international policy makers, which holds that a violent
conflict ought to meet philosophical, religious or political criteria.

Thomas Aquinas — an immensely influential philosopher and theologian
in the tradition of scholasticism — used the authority of Augustine's
arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be
just:

First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such
as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good:
which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)

Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for
self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as
an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good
that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for
an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen
population.)

Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.
(Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has
expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must
also fight for this intention.)
James
2013-10-06 16:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
Then make would make Paul a liar here. 2 Ti 3:16,17,
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for
every good work." (NAB)
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for refutation
USEFUL for correction
USEFUL for training in righteousness,
"so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every
good work.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
Useful for teaching.
"...and for
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching
See above the other useful things.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
You need to read more on Paul.
And Jesus.
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus
in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
The main point being pay taxes to Caesar when he calls for it. Not to
go to war when he calls for it. Refusing is payment back to God for
obeying Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.
You can't just pick and choose which commandments to follow and which
to ignore.
Which commandment speaks against a Just War doctrine?
Just war theory (or Bellum iustum) is a doctrine of military ethics of
Roman philosophical and Catholic origin, studied by moral theologians,
ethicists and international policy makers, which holds that a violent
conflict ought to meet philosophical, religious or political criteria.
Thomas Aquinas — an immensely influential philosopher and theologian
in the tradition of scholasticism — used the authority of Augustine's
arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be
First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such
which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for
self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as
an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good
that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for
an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen
population.)
Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.
(Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has
expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must
also fight for this intention.)
Tell that to all the dead people who were recipients of that so-called
'just war'. See Jesus' statements at Mt 5:44 and Mt 26:52 and Mt 19:19
and Paul's statement at 2 Co 10:3,4. To ignore such commands can put
one of the side of God's enemies, not His worshippers.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-06 17:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
Then make would make Paul a liar here. 2 Ti 3:16,17,
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for
every good work." (NAB)
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for refutation
USEFUL for correction
USEFUL for training in righteousness,
"so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every
good work.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
Useful for teaching.
"...and for
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching
See above the other useful things.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
You need to read more on Paul.
And Jesus.
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus
in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
The main point being pay taxes to Caesar when he calls for it. Not to
go to war when he calls for it. Refusing is payment back to God for
obeying Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.
You can't just pick and choose which commandments to follow and which
to ignore.
Which commandment speaks against a Just War doctrine?
Just war theory (or Bellum iustum) is a doctrine of military ethics of
Roman philosophical and Catholic origin, studied by moral theologians,
ethicists and international policy makers, which holds that a violent
conflict ought to meet philosophical, religious or political criteria.
Thomas Aquinas — an immensely influential philosopher and theologian
in the tradition of scholasticism — used the authority of Augustine's
arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be
First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such
which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for
self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as
an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good
that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for
an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen
population.)
Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.
(Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has
expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must
also fight for this intention.)
Tell that to all the dead people who were recipients of that so-called
'just war'. See Jesus' statements at Mt 5:44 and Mt 26:52 and Mt 19:19
and Paul's statement at 2 Co 10:3,4. To ignore such commands can put
one of the side of God's enemies, not His worshippers.
Many Christian scholars have pointed to Jesus' "cleansing of the
temple" as an example of righteous anger. Below are other instances
where Jesus expressed anger in word or deed.

Addressing the Pharisees
Matthew 23
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and
dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law,
justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without
neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and
swallowing a camel! ... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful,
but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

Healing the Man with the Withered Hand
Mark 3
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered
hand. And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the
sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had
the withered hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it lawful on
the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But
they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at
their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went
out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how
to destroy him.

Rebuking Peter
Mark 3
...he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things,
and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this
plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But turning and
seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me,
Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." And he called
to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man
would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and
follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever
loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.

Predicting the Passion
Mark 8
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And
seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could
find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves,
for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one
ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. And they
came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out
those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned
the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold
pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the
temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have
made it a den of robbers." And the chief priests and the scribes heard
it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all
the multitude was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came
they went out of the city. As they passed by in the morning, they saw
the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said
to him, "Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered."

Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple
Mark 11
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And
seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could
find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves,
for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one
ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. And they
came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out
those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned
the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold
pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the
temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have
made it a den of robbers." And the chief priests and the scribes heard
it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all
the multitude was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came
they went out of the city. As they passed by in the morning, they saw
the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said
to him, "Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered."

Blessing the Children
Mark 10
And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and
the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant,
and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them;
for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever
does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon
them.

Curing a Demoniac
Mark 1
And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean
spirit; and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of
Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy
One of God." But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out
of him!" And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud
voice, came out of him.
James
2013-10-07 18:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine
Thus the Catholics don't trust God to take care of matters, they must
do it themselves. And they also defy Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and
2 Co 10:3,4.
No, they don't.
The gospels are NOT commandments.
Then make would make Paul a liar here. 2 Ti 3:16,17,
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17. so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for
every good work." (NAB)
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for refutation
USEFUL for correction
USEFUL for training in righteousness,
"so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every
good work.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness." (NAB)
Useful for teaching.
"...and for
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching.
USEFUL for teaching
See above the other useful things.
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
You can't justify war based on the accounts in the OT;
I don't.
Post by James
Yes, Paul said in Romans that the civil laws of today are there to
punish the wrongdoer. He nowhere says that Christians are to be
involved in that endeavor. On the contrary he said that Christians do
not wage wars like the nations do. (2 Co 10:3.4)
You need to read more on Paul.
And Jesus.
"Render unto Caesar" is the beginning of a phrase attributed to Jesus
in the synoptic gospels, which reads in full, "Render unto Caesar the
things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"
The main point being pay taxes to Caesar when he calls for it. Not to
go to war when he calls for it. Refusing is payment back to God for
obeying Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4.
You can't just pick and choose which commandments to follow and which
to ignore.
Which commandment speaks against a Just War doctrine?
Just war theory (or Bellum iustum) is a doctrine of military ethics of
Roman philosophical and Catholic origin, studied by moral theologians,
ethicists and international policy makers, which holds that a violent
conflict ought to meet philosophical, religious or political criteria.
Thomas Aquinas — an immensely influential philosopher and theologian
in the tradition of scholasticism — used the authority of Augustine's
arguments as he laid out the conditions under which a war could be
First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such
which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for
self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as
an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good
that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for
an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen
population.)
Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence.
(Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has
expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must
also fight for this intention.)
Tell that to all the dead people who were recipients of that so-called
'just war'. See Jesus' statements at Mt 5:44 and Mt 26:52 and Mt 19:19
and Paul's statement at 2 Co 10:3,4. To ignore such commands can put
one of the side of God's enemies, not His worshippers.
Many Christian scholars have pointed to Jesus' "cleansing of the
temple" as an example of righteous anger. Below are other instances
where Jesus expressed anger in word or deed.
Addressing the Pharisees
Matthew 23
"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and
dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law,
justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without
neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining out a gnat and
swallowing a camel! ... Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful,
but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.
Healing the Man with the Withered Hand
Mark 3
Again he entered the synagogue, and a man was there who had a withered
hand. And they watched him, to see whether he would heal him on the
sabbath, so that they might accuse him. And he said to the man who had
the withered hand, "Come here." And he said to them, "Is it lawful on
the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?" But
they were silent. And he looked around at them with anger, grieved at
their hardness of heart, and said to the man, "Stretch out your hand."
He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. The Pharisees went
out, and immediately held counsel with the Herodians against him, how
to destroy him.
Rebuking Peter
Mark 3
...he began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things,
and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again. And he said this
plainly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him. But turning and
seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter, and said, "Get behind me,
Satan! For you are not on the side of God, but of men." And he called
to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man
would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and
follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever
loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
Predicting the Passion
Mark 8
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And
seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could
find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves,
for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one
ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. And they
came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out
those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned
the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold
pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the
temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have
made it a den of robbers." And the chief priests and the scribes heard
it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all
the multitude was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came
they went out of the city. As they passed by in the morning, they saw
the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said
to him, "Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered."
Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple
Mark 11
On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And
seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could
find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves,
for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, "May no one
ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard it. And they
came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out
those who sold and those who bought in the temple, and he overturned
the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold
pigeons; and he would not allow any one to carry anything through the
temple. And he taught, and said to them, "Is it not written, 'My house
shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations'? But you have
made it a den of robbers." And the chief priests and the scribes heard
it and sought a way to destroy him; for they feared him, because all
the multitude was astonished at his teaching. And when evening came
they went out of the city. As they passed by in the morning, they saw
the fig tree withered away to its roots. And Peter remembered and said
to him, "Master, look! The fig tree which you cursed has withered."
Blessing the Children
Mark 10
And they were bringing children to him, that he might touch them; and
the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it he was indignant,
and said to them, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them;
for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you, whoever
does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it."
And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon
them.
Curing a Demoniac
Mark 1
And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean
spirit; and he cried out, "What have you to do with us, Jesus of
Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy
One of God." But Jesus rebuked him, saying, "Be silent, and come out
of him!" And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying with a loud
voice, came out of him.
The 'righteous anger' of Jesus did not kill anyone. Jesus set no
example for doing that. He had plenty of opportunities to use his
fellow Christian servants to kill opposers, but he declined to take
any human life. On the contrary, when Peter drew his sword and cut off
a man's ear, Jesus said at Mt 26:52,

Mt 26:52,

""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword."" (NIV)

To justify war based on Jesus overturning the thieves money tables in
the Synagogue is making a liar out of Jesus, esp at Mt 26:52.

But if a religion approves of war, many people just go along with it
figuring the religious leaders know a lot more than they do. That is a
shame to all the millions who have died as a result of religions
disobeying Jesus' righteous commands.
PATRICK
2013-10-07 19:45:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
The 'righteous anger' of Jesus did not kill anyone. Jesus set no
example for doing that. He had plenty of opportunities to use his
fellow Christian servants to kill opposers, but he declined to take
any human life. On the contrary, when Peter drew his sword and cut off
a man's ear, Jesus said at Mt 26:52,
Mt 26:52,
""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword."" (NIV)
To justify war based on Jesus overturning the thieves money tables in
the Synagogue is making a liar out of Jesus, esp at Mt 26:52.
It is a bigger sin to stand by and watch as someone murders innocent
people than it is to step in and try to stop him.
James
2013-10-08 16:04:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The 'righteous anger' of Jesus did not kill anyone. Jesus set no
example for doing that. He had plenty of opportunities to use his
fellow Christian servants to kill opposers, but he declined to take
any human life. On the contrary, when Peter drew his sword and cut off
a man's ear, Jesus said at Mt 26:52,
Mt 26:52,
""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword."" (NIV)
To justify war based on Jesus overturning the thieves money tables in
the Synagogue is making a liar out of Jesus, esp at Mt 26:52.
It is a bigger sin to stand by and watch as someone murders innocent
people than it is to step in and try to stop him.
Who said one can't do anything? Depending upon the circumstances (but
not a war), one could disable the aggressor. (just not kill him)
At any rate, those are Jesus' words at Mt 26:52 and Mt 19:19 and Mt
5:44, and Paul's words at 2 Cor 10:3,4, and you can obey them or not.
Its your choice.

Just recall Jesus words at Lu 6:46,

Lu 6:46,

"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)

JW's follow ALL of Jesus' words, not just the ones that are popular.
If you want to be a part of the true "one faith" religion of the Bible
(Eph 4:5), you are always welcome to look into it.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-08 16:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
The 'righteous anger' of Jesus did not kill anyone. Jesus set no
example for doing that. He had plenty of opportunities to use his
fellow Christian servants to kill opposers, but he declined to take
any human life. On the contrary, when Peter drew his sword and cut off
a man's ear, Jesus said at Mt 26:52,
Mt 26:52,
""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
draw the sword will die by the sword."" (NIV)
To justify war based on Jesus overturning the thieves money tables in
the Synagogue is making a liar out of Jesus, esp at Mt 26:52.
It is a bigger sin to stand by and watch as someone murders innocent
people than it is to step in and try to stop him.
Who said one can't do anything? Depending upon the circumstances (but
not a war), one could disable the aggressor. (just not kill him)
At any rate, those are Jesus' words at Mt 26:52 and Mt 19:19 and Mt
5:44, and Paul's words at 2 Cor 10:3,4, and you can obey them or not.
Its your choice.
Just recall Jesus words at Lu 6:46,
Lu 6:46,
"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
JW's follow ALL of Jesus' words, not just the ones that are popular.
If you want to be a part of the true "one faith" religion of the Bible
(Eph 4:5), you are always welcome to look into it.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
Acts 10

1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,
2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Notice: A military man(i.e.centurion) is called devout,feared God,
gave alms, and prayed God alway.
This person God used to open the Gospel to the
gentiles, he was baptized and received the Holy Ghost,
and was not told to leave the military. Q.E.D.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.
4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.
5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:
6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.
7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;
8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.
9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.
17 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,
18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.
19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.
20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
21 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?
22 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.
23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.
28 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.
29 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?
30 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,
31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
32 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.
33 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.
34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.
36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)
37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
duke
2013-10-02 20:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
Jesus said to "love your enemies" and pray for them. (Mt 5:44),
Mark 12:17 (New International Version)
17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God
what is God’s.”
And they were amazed at him.

Civil requirements are a Christians requirement also.


The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
vince garcia
2013-10-03 09:34:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
military and kill the enemy?
yes

As a matter of fact, the record of Christians in military or political
service is shown from Acts, the epistles, on into Christian history,
including Christian Jews fighting in the bar Kochba revolt until he
declared himself to be the messiah. There is much further evidence of
Christians in the military in the 2nd century on, which jim and i have
posted before, but I will not repeat it yet again
James
2013-10-03 16:05:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by vince garcia
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
military and kill the enemy?
yes
As a matter of fact, the record of Christians in military or political
service is shown from Acts, the epistles, on into Christian history,
including Christian Jews fighting in the bar Kochba revolt until he
declared himself to be the messiah. There is much further evidence of
Christians in the military in the 2nd century on, which jim and i have
posted before, but I will not repeat it yet again
Thus those involved in wars disobeyed God's words at Mt 5:44, Mt
26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4 to name a few. They will be held
accountaable for their unscriptural actions.

These accounts plus John 18:10,11 gives us the whole story. Jesus
told his disciples to be armed right before his betrayal. A total
quantity of just two swords would certainly not be enough to defend
themselves from the approaching mob.(Jesus knew he had to die to
fulfill scripture, so he would not perform a miracle here. See Mt
26:53,54) So why did he tell them to get the swords?

Did you know that the EARLY Christians, would not even partake of
government politics?

The second century writer, Justin Martyr (155-160 A.D.) also knew
Christians' views then on carnal warfare. In "Dialogue with Trypho, a
Jew", CXX, he wrote,

"We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every
wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike
weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements
of tillage."

Yes, the early Christians followed Jesus' and the Apostles' teachings
on not getting involved with carnal warfare. True Christians today do
likewise.

Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
governing of the cities".

Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.".

Heckel and Sigman in "-On the Road to Civilization, A World History"
wrote, "Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with
little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . .Christians
refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would
not hold political office."


Regardless of how religious leaders of today justify professed
Christians engaging in warfare, the
early Christians view of the military is on record:

Arnold Toynbee in "An Historian's Approach to Religion" talks about a
third century martyr named
Maximilianus, who refused induction into the Roman military. He cites
Maximilianus as saying, "I
have a conscientious objection to military service: I am a Christian.
. . . I can't serve; I can't sin
against my conscience... I won't serve. You may behead me, but I won't
serve the powers of This
World; I will serve my God."

H. Ingli James in "Treasury of the Christian World" wrote, "Origen
[who lived in the second and
third centuries of the Common Era] . . . remarks that 'the Christian
Church cannot engage in war
against any nation. They have learned from their Leader that they are
children of peace.' In that
period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service."

The second century Historian Justin Martyr in "Dialogue With Trypho, a
Jew" (CX) wrote, "We
who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness,
have each through the whole
earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and
our spears into implements
of tillage."

The historian Will Durant in "Caesar and Christ" wrote, ""To a
Christian his religion was something
apart from and superior to political society; his highest allegiance
belonged not to Caesar but to
Christ. . . . The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs
seemed to the pagan a flight from
civic duty, a weakening of the national fiber and will. Tertullian
advised Christians to refuse military
service;"

A Swiss Catholic publication "Orientierung" wrote about the patron
saint of France, Saint Martin
(316-397) It said, ""That this highly renowned saint of Western
Christianity resigned from military
service out of Christian conviction, considering being a soldier and a
Christian at the same time
incompatible, has always been embarrassing to Catholic theology. This
fact-either deliberately or
undeliberately-has simply been kept quiet."

The religious magazine "The Christian Century" stated, "The earliest
Christians did not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes
that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D.
170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army.' . .
. Only gradually did Christians abandon their opposition to military
service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as
authorizing Christians' participation in military activities, 'just
war' soon became whatever war their government engaged in."

The historian Ernest William Barnes in "The Rise of Christianity"
wrote, "A careful review of all the information available goes to show
that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [emperor from 161 to 180
C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a
Christian, remained in military service."

Philip Schaff in "History of the Christian Church" wrote, "The
conscientious refusal of the
Christians to pay divine honors to the emperor and his statue, and to
take part in any idolatrous
ceremonies at public festivities, their aversion to the imperial
military service, their disregard for
politics and depreciation of all civil and temporal affairs as
compared with the spiritual and eternal
interests of man, their close brotherly union and frequent meetings,
drew upon them the suspicion
of hostility to the Caesars and the Roman people."

This is how the early Christians interpreted the Holy Scriptures on
the subject we are discussing.

James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-03 16:18:49 UTC
Permalink
Christians in the Roman Army:
Countering the Pacifist Narrative
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/alt.bible/VkaO4lAYVRk/w_N717aAzqoJ

Christian pacifism has raised its profile in recent years, likely prompted by dissatisfaction with increasing political polarization, and promoted by some influential writers. Ideas promoted in the past century by Cecil John Cadoux and John Howard Yoder with little headway have found a modern defender in Stanley Hauerwas and a popularizer in Shane Claiborne, whose books, speaking tours and radical lifestyle have attracted many admirers if few followers.

Central to all of these authors’ ideas is the concept of the “fall of the church.” They hold that early Christianity was pacifist and anarchist in character, and rejected the ideas of military service and loyalty to the state. As Christianity came to be accepted by the Roman government at around the time of Constantine, the church became corrupted by its relationship with state power. After Constantine the church became willing to acquiesce to state power and wage war, execute people in the name of the state, force conversions, and recognize the authority of rulers other than Jesus. According to Yoder, the behavior of the early church is important because the early Christians “read the Bible in a first-century context. They read the New Testament in the same world in which it was written, in the same language in which it was written. They probably read it, therefore, with more understanding than we do. Hence, how they read the New Testament is helpful to us in our reading of the New Testament, whatever the limits of their faithfulness.”[1]


While the emperors and soldiers of the late Empire clearly used Christian symbolism, what about the army before Constantine?

I shall leave the theological portion of this debate for other websites. What I will do is examine the central historical claim of the “fall of the church” thesis: That Christians before the era of Constantine were pacifists who did not enlist in the Roman military. Unfortunately, none of the pacifist authors who have tackled this question have much experience in ancient history and it has led them to make certain errors which have led to erroneous conclusions.

First, to cover some basics of the Roman Army from Augustus to Constantine. The Roman army during this period was an all-volunteer force. No one was in the army who didn’t want to join. The Army was made up of two groups: The Legions and the Auxilia. Recruitment for the legions was open only to Roman citizens, who served for 20 years unless they were injured and medically discharged or were kicked out. On the other hand, the auxilia were recruited from the peregrini, the non-citizens of the provinces. Their term of service was 25 years, after which they received Roman citizenship as well as conubium, the right to marry a non-Roman wife but still pass on Roman citizenship to their children. The navy was smaller and accepted more non-citizens, but the model was essentially the same. As a result, service in the auxilia was a common route for social and economic advancement for those who were not Roman citizens. In 212, the emperor Caracalla decreed that everyone in the Roman Empire was now a Roman citizen, but the auxilia did not disappear (many units were now centuries old with a storied battle history they were loath to part with), rather, they ceased to be a method for social advancement and became just another type of unit which included special units such as cavalry and archers.

Like everything else in Roman society, the army also had a pagan religious element. Festivals, sacrifices, and sacred ceremonies honoring the gods, the emperor, the Legion’s standards, and nonspecific virtues such as virtus and disciplina were commonplace. How Christians in the ranks would deal with the requirement to partake in these ceremonies would become a major issue.[2]

In the 1st century, we have some scraps of evidence of Christians in the Roman military. The gospel of Luke states that some soldiers (possibly from the Roman puppet Herod’s auxiliary forces) asked John the Baptist for religious advice, and he told them “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” Matthew mentions that Jesus was visited by a centurion in Capernaum who asked him to heal his sick servant. Later, the book of Acts records that Peter preached at the house of a centurion named Cornelius who was stationed in Caesarea, and the man and his household became some of the first non-Jewish converts to Christianity.[3]

From the conversion of Cornelius at about AD 39 to AD 173, we have absolutely no sources referencing Christian participation in the army. None. It may have happened, it may not have happened. Either way, we know nothing about it, so speculating is futile.[4]

In 173, we have a story that would be easy to dismiss were it not documented by five sources. During the Marcomannic Wars, emperor Marcus Aurelius was leading the Legio XII Fulminata (“Thunderstruck”) campaign along the Danube against the Quadi, erstwhile allies of Rome who had switched sides. The Quadi met the legion with a superior force and drove them to an open field away from water sources. It was a hot day, and the Quadi halted their attack to allow heat and thirst to take its toll.

Surrounded, outnumbered, out of water, growing weak from thirst and in desperate straights, what is clear from the sources is that lots of men began to pray. Soon, a thunderstorm materialized. Lightning struck the treeline where some of the Quadi had gathered, scattering many of them. Rain and hail poured from the sky. No battle could be fought in such weather, so the Quadi withdrew, which was fortunate for the Romans as they were so busy gulping down water collected in their helmets and shields that they were hardly in a position to fight.


Relief on the Column of Marcus Aurelius in Rome, showing Roman troops surrounded by the Quadi as a rain god arrives with a thunderstorm on the upper right.


Christian authors Tertullian and Apollinarius said that the Christians in the legion prayed and credited them with providing rain, adding that Marcus Aurelius thanked his Christian soldiers for their prayers. Pagan writer Cassius Dio credited an Egyptian magician named Arnuphis who “invoked by means of enchantments various deities and in particular Mercury.” The unknown author of the Historia Augusta credited the prayers of Marcus Aurelius himself, he did not note the receiving deity. The event is also depicted in a relief on a column commissioned by Marcus Aurelius in Rome, where the rain is seen coming in anthropomorphic form, with a rain god spreading his arms over the troops.[5]

What can one make of this? The presence of Christians in Legio XII cannot be casually dismissed. The legion was normally based in Melitene in Cappadocia, a place with a large Christian population. The earliest Christian writer to mention the incident was Tertullian, who wrote about it a mere thirty years after it happened. Apollinarius, the other Christian to mention it, was from Melitene.[6] The accounts are easily reconcilable. One can surmise that once the unit was surrounded and in dire straits, the men began praying to the gods of whatever religion they happened to follow. The Christians prayed their God and the pagans to every god they could possibly think of. When rain fortuitously came, each man walked away convinced that his prayers had caused his personal deity to come through for everyone.

Since Cadoux and Yoder first published their views some decades ago, archaeology has shed new light on Christians in the Roman Army in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. A number of gravestones have been found that list a soldier’s religion as well as his unit. H. Leclerq recorded 8 pre-Constantian Christian gravestones of soldiers. The earliest is a gravestone of a Christian who served in Legio II Parthia and died in 201. This makes it not only the earliest Christian soldier’s inscription, but one of the oldest known Christian inscriptions period.[7] Legio II was raised by Septimius Severus in 197 in preparation for his invasion of Parthia, so the soldier in question cannot have served long before his death.

The remains of two Christian churches from the early 3rd century have been excavated by archaeologists, and both of them are linked to the Roman army. The oldest was discovered at Megiddo in Israel in the late 1990s. The church was built in a back room inside of a military fortress that served as the headquarters of the Legio II Traiana (“Trajan’s”) and Legio VI Ferrata (“Ironclad”). On the floor there is a mosaic depicting two fish as a symbol of Jesus Christ. Any doubt about the room’s use and the identity of its worshipers is removed by inscriptions written in Greek on the mosaics:

“The God-loving Akeptous has offered the table to God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”

“Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the work.”


Mosaic on the floor of an early Christian church within the Roman army fortress at Megiddo.

Akeptous is a woman’s name, and the names of several other women were also written on the floor. This indicates women played some role in this church as well, despite having benefactors and a congregation likely made up of soldiers.[8]

The second church was located inside a house built against the city wall in the fortress city of Dura-Europos, on the west bank of the Euphrates on the Syrian frontier. The church was built around 241. The city also featured a synagogue as well as temples to Mithras and numerous polytheistic deities. Unlike Megiddo, we have no direct evidence that soldiers attended the church save the circumstantial evidence of its location inside a heavily fortified border garrison town that was home to thousands of Roman soldiers.

The church only operated for fifteen years. In 256, Dura-Europos became a target for Persian Shah Shapur I of the ascendant Sassanid Empire. In preparation for the siege, both the synagogue and the church were filled in with dirt in order to strengthen the walls (this preserved the numerous paintings which adorned the insides). It was futile. The city was taken in a violent assault that included one of the first recorded cases of the use of poison gas in warfare. The city was razed to the ground, its population deported, and was never rebuilt.[9]


Aerial view of the fortress town of Dura-Europos, on the west bank of the Euphrates on the border of Roman Syria.

Most of this archaeological evidence was unknown when Cadoux and Yoder were writing their works. As a result, the most discussed pieces of evidence are not the archaeological finds but the textual evidence from the early church fathers.

An often overlooked individual in this debate is a Christian named Sextus Julius Africanus. Born in Aelia Capitolina (formerly known as Jerusalem), he served as an officer in the Roman army before joining the civil service as a diplomat during the reign of Severus Alexander. For the rest of his life he traveled widely. He led an embassy to Edessa, sought funds to rebuilt Emmaus, worked to establish a library in Rome, visited Alexandria, Nysa and the site of Noah’s Ark. He met and later corresponded with Origen. The topics of his writings reveal him to be a polymath and one of the first Christian intellectuals to branch out of theology and into other fields. He wrote a work of history called the Chronography which drew on Christian, Jewish and Pagan sources. He engaged in textual criticism of the book of Daniel, proving that the additional sections in the Septuagint were not in the original text. Another work called the Kestoi dealt with science, magic and technology. Here he offered advice on military morale, tactics and technology, including swordsmanship, the proper use of war elephants and a recipe for making burning phosphorus. Unfortunately for his place in history, the vast majority of his writings have been lost.[10] His views on war and the validity of the state have not survived, but seeing as how he carried out the duties of both and wrote about them, it seems he did not categorically disapprove of either.

Most discussion of the textual evidence has centered around two prolific writers of the early 3rd century church: Tertullian and Origen. Here, the pacifists often commit what is known amongst ancient historians as the Everest Fallacy. That is, the lack of source material in the ancient world causes us to mistake the exceptional for the typical. The pacifists tend to take the writings of Tertullian and Origen as normative for Christian thought of the period, when in fact these two prodigious writers were exceptional theologians of their time. Using them as “typical” Christians of their time period is equivalent to seeing Mount Everest as a “typical” mountain, or William Shakespeare as a “typical” English playwright of the 16th century, or the Beatles as a “typical” British rock band of the 1960s. The truth is, many Christians of the early 3rd century were illiterate, and many other authors such as Julius Africanus have had their writings lost. Tertullian and Origen survived because they were considered exceptional, not because they were typical.


Reconstruction of the baptismal font in the church at Dura-Europos, at Yale University Art Gallery.

With that said, what do these two men say on the issue? Tertullian’s views changed over time. In the first years after his conversion, c. 197, he penned a work titled Apology (sometimes styled “Defense of the Christians”) where he argued that Christians were not dangerous subversives but were in fact loyal citizens of the Roman Empire deserving of official toleration and protection. After all, he said “We are not Indian Brahmins or Gymnosophists, who dwell in woods and exile themselves from ordinary human life.” Christians, he wrote, were normal members of society and valued the Empire because of the peace and security that it provided. Thus they prayed for its safety and continued survival. What did they pray for specifically? “We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.”[11]

To further his case, Tertullian pointed out that “We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you— cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods.” Later, he added that “We sail with you, and fight with you, and till the ground with you…How it is we seem useless in your ordinary business, living with you and by you as we do, I am not able to understand.” Christians according to Tertullian were normal members of society in everything except their refusal to take part in pagan religious rites. They carried on commerce, farmed, and served in the navy and army (and were therefore found in “fortresses” and “the very camp.”). If they wanted to hurt the Empire they could, but they didn’t want to, because they were just as personally invested in its survival as everyone else.[12]

Later in life, Tertullian’s views changed. By about 206 he had embraced the Montanist movement, a sect of Christianity that put an emphasis on prophetic revelation and strict morality. Declaring that “what has not been freely allowed is forbidden,” he became legalistic, moralizing and harshly critical of the Roman government and political system.[13] When asked to comment on the propriety of Christians serving in the Roman military even if they were not required to make pagan sacrifices or execute people, he rejected the idea outright. Whereas he had once argued that Christians supported the Roman state, he now declared that “There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters— God and Caesar…how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away?”[14]

He expounded further on his views in another work titled “On the Military Crown.” This piece was occasioned by a Christian soldier who had refused to wear a laurel crown when his unit was personally inspected by the emperor. He was arrested for insubordination, tried, and sentenced to death. Some Christians condemned him for being an extremist and needlessly antagonizing the authorities. Tertullian came to his defense, arguing that the laurel crown was a symbol of the gods Apollo and Bacchus. While it might be permissible to use pagan goods for non-religious purposes, such as burning incense to get rid of a foul smell, he argued that crowns had no practical use outside of their symbolism and therefore Christians should have nothing to do with them.[15]


Inscription dedicating to “God Jesus Christ” a table which stood on the stone pedestal to the left, at the Megiddo church.

He then moved on to consider the issue of “whether warfare is proper at all for Christians.” He strongly concluded that it was not. How, he asked, could Christians wield a sword when Jesus told Peter to put his sword back in its place? How could a Christian soldier pull guard duty on the Sabbath when he won’t work? How could a Christian soldier guard pagan temples, or march under the flag of a regime hostile to Christianity? It was wrong, he argued, for Christians to have any loyalties but to Christ. Christians should not join the army and those in the army should leave immediately.[16]

Writing from Alexandria, Origen proposed a more systematic theory of Christian pacifism in his “Against Celsus.” Countering Celsus’ charge that Christians did not serve in the military, Origen argued that Christians did better by staying home and praying for the emperor, “wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed.”

In response to Celsus’ charge that if everyone did as the Christians did the empire would be overrun by its enemies, Origen argued that Christianity uniquely had the potential to unite all the peoples of the world under one faith. Once everyone became a Christian and followed its pacifist teachings, there would be no more wars and no kingdom would have to worry about being conquered by another one.[17]

Where Origen went a bit fuzzy is about what was supposed to happen before this point. What happens when not all the world is Christian, and there are still wars and foreign invasions? He implied that some wars are just by saying that Christians should pray for the emperor’s success in war, but seemed to suggest that Christians become freeloaders and stay home while other people do the fighting.[18]

What is clear from this body of evidence is that in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries many Christians were joining the army and many soldiers were converting. If they were not, Tertullian and Origen would not have felt the need to spill so much ink to write about it.[19]


Cleaning the Megiddo mosaic. The text on the left reads “Gaianus, also called Porphyrius, centurion, our brother, has made the pavement at his own expense as an act of liberality. Brutius carried out the work.”

There were several factors that made the army conducive to Christianity. Contrary to Claiborne’s claim that early Christianity was “filled with those who had been left in the wake of imperial progress – day laborers, working children, old folks, feisty revolutionaries, single working mothers, those with disabilities, immigrants, and other who just had nothing to lose,” early Christian conversion in fact was a province of the upper classes. Upon closer thought this should not be surprising, for a religion that is spread primarily by sacred texts presupposes the ability to read. Christianity spread along trade networks and into urban centers, amongst the merchants, administrators and tradesmen. The last areas penetrated by Christianity were the ranks of the rural poor.[20]

Roman soldiers, especially officers, were more likely to be literate as it was needed for administrative functions. Army units were constantly on the move throughout the empire, indeed, soldiers may have spread Christianity to some new areas such as Britain. After the sporadic persecutions of Nero, Trajan, and Marcus Aurelius in Lyons, Christianity entered a period of unofficial toleration. The emperor Alexander Severus even met with Origen personally and kept a statue of Jesus (along with statues of Orpheus, Abraham and Apollonius of Tyana) in his personal shrine. Caracalla’s decree in 212 granting citizenship to the entire empire likely opened the door for many more Christian recruits to join the legions. Throughout the first half of the 3rd century, “one gets the sense that the army had adopted a modus vivendi with its Christian troops by following an unofficial “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy” with regards to their religious beliefs and observance of Army religious practices. Likely, some form of accommodation and compromise was arrived at on the unit level. In Megiddo, it even appears that some of the officers themselves were Christians and funded church construction for their men. When the persecutions began during the reign of Diocletian, many commanders were reluctant to condemn their Christian soldiers, and some tried to give them every way out possible. They didn’t want to lose good soldiers over the seemingly arbitrary whims of the emperor.[21]

Against this evidence, Yoder was forced to admit that Christians did serve in the military before Constantine, but tried to justify his position by arguing that this time period was “The epoch of Pax Romana, an age of world peace. There were brushfire skirmishes with barbarians around the edge of the empire, but few Christians lived there. Most of the Mediterranean world had not seen war for centuries.” In this world, “Most Roman soldiers were simply bureaucrats. They carried the mail, administered roads, and enforced laws and the prison system.” Christians who joined the army “probably did it because the work was easy and the rewards generous, without troubling themselves much with moral analysis.”[22]

This assessment of Roman history is, quite frankly, absolutely preposterous. First, to refute the idea that service in the Roman legions was “easy,” Flavius Vegetius’ account of the training of a Roman legionnaire can be found here. It included running, obstacle courses, vaulting over wooden horses in full armor, digging trenches, mock combat twice a day with “wooden swords double the weight of the common ones,” ruck marching with 60-pound packs, and field exercises featuring lengthy marches and maneuvering in formation. Conditions were harsh. Modern analysis of surviving legion rosters and discharge records estimates that only 50-60% of soldiers completed their full term of service. Combat, harsh military discipline, medical discharges, and disease took care of the rest.[23]

What is even more preposterous is the claim that the 3rd century was “an age of world peace.” Between the reign of Marcus Aurelius and the beginning of Constantine’s establishment as sole emperor in 324, there were no fewer than 21 wars against foreign enemies, three major secession movements, two major civil wars, and thirteen military coups. The period is referred to as the Third Century Crisis, and is generally seen as a time that nearly brought the Roman Empire to its knees. Of course most of these wars were on the borders of the empire. That is also where most of the soldiers were stationed.

Another pacifist, Roland Bainton, has claimed that Christians only served in non-combat positions, specifically in the positions of frumentarius, vigiles, beneficarius and protectores. The problem is, Bainton seems to have not been aware of what these positions actually were. A vigiles was a firefighter and could pass as a non-combat position, but the frumentarii were the emperor’s intelligence agency and secret police. A beneficarius was a supply officer, but it was invariably an intermediate rank that a soldier held before his promotion to centurion. A protectores was an officer in charge of training, but the position did not exist before Constantine’s military reforms so no one would have held it pre-Constantine. Yoder and others have claimed that Christians served only as police to enforce civil order, not as soldiers, but this overlooks the fact that in most of the Empire soldiers were the police.[24]


Wall painting from the church at Dura-Europos showing Jesus and Peter walking on water.

The rapid growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire stoked fear and resentment amongst the pagan population, some of whom blamed the Christians for the gods’ apparent disfavor towards the empire. The first persecutions under Decius in 250 and Valerian in 260 were brief, and ended when each ruler was killed in battle.

Much worse came during the reign of Diocletian from 285 onwards. By this time, Christians had filled the ranks of the military to the point that Diocletian had doubts about the loyalty of his troops. Before he could begin a general persecution of Christians in the empire, he first had to purge the military of Christians. Soldiers were forced to offer a sacrifice to the Roman gods, if they refused they were to be expelled from service. Some were executed.

Numerous stories of military martyrs date to this time period. Many are unreliable, but many others are written in a style that indicate the accounts were based off of notes taken at an actual trial. The stories of soldiers such as Marinus, Maximilian, Marcellus, Dasius, Julius the Veteran, Tipasius and others are too lengthy to recount here. Their presence, however, reveals some facts about the presence of Christians in the Roman army. The men described were veterans and well-regarded by their fellow soldiers. Some of the men were officers or offered promotion to officer rank. Julius served 27 years, fought in seven campaigns and re-enlisted after his original term of service had expired. In many cases, their commanders were reluctant to act against them due to their exceptional service and offered them bonuses, gave them time to reconsider, or tried to make other accommodations to convince them to make the sacrifice and remain in the service.

What is important to note is that the soldiers’ trouble always came from refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods or wear religiously symbolic clothing. We don’t have a case of a pre-Constantian soldier martyr who was brought to trial for refusal to fight. This indicates their objection was to Roman army religion, not to the concept of war and soldiering itself. Their long terms of service also seem to indicate that their rejection of army religion hadn’t been a problem for their officers until orders came down from above to start making it a problem.[25]

The debate over pacifism in the early church has often overlooked the views of Christians who lived outside of the Roman Empire. While few written sources that address the topic have survived, the actions of the kingdom of Armenia are an interesting case. Towards the end of the Diocletianic persecution Maximin Daia, the emperor of the east, attempted to extend the persecution into the Roman client state of Armenia. Armenia was at the time the world’s only officially Christian nation, and when Maximin’s troops attempted to enforce his decrees there the entire country rose in armed revolt and defeated the Roman forces.[26]


Wall painting from the church at Dura-Europos showing Jesus healing the paralytic.

So what are we to make of Origen and Tertullian? The available evidence seems to indicate that at the very least, a large number of Christians disagreed with them. Tertullian’s embrace of the Montanists clearly took him outside the mainstream of contemporary Christian thought of his era. Because of this, the pacifist views which he adopted after joining the sect were likely also outside of the mainstream. Origen is a more interesting case, but even here we can note that he corresponded with other scholars such as Julius Africanus who quite likely disagreed with him.

It is also interesting to note that the two scholars lived in the most peaceful parts of the Roman Empire at that time.[27] One can justifiably wonder if their views on war might have been different had they had lived in Britain, or the Danube frontier, or the border with the Sassanid Empire. As it was, once Constantine came to power and Christianity grew to encompass the majority of the population of the Roman Empire, Christians all of a sudden had to take on the duties of the responsible exercise of power. As a result, Ambrose and Augustine began to develop what became known as Just War theory, which has dominated Christian thought on the matter ever since.

There was no golden age of a pacifist church avoiding the worldly entanglements of politics, only to trade its soul to Constantine for earthly power. Instead, as Peter Leithart observes, “the story of the church and war is ambiguity before Constantine, ambiguity after, and ambiguity right to the present.”[28] The pacifists are reaching back for a mythical past that never existed. There has always been disagreement on the issues of war and the legitimacy of the state, and there likely always will be so long as the world breeds overreaching governments and discontented citizens.

Further Reading:

Cecil John Cadoux, The Early Christian Attitude Toward War (London: Headley, 1919), available online at: http://archive.org/details/earlychristianat00cadouoft.

John T. Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army, A.D. 173-337,” Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), pp. 149-163+200.

Peter J. Leithart, Defending Constantine (Madison, Wisconsin: InterVarsity Press, 2009).

John F. Shean, Soldiering for God: Christianity and the Roman Army (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010).

Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ’: Early Christian Prayer Hall Found in Megiddo Prison,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (March/April 2007), available online at: http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/oldest-church-02.asp.

John Howard Yoder, Early Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 2009).

References:

[1] John Howard Yoder, Early Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute of Mennonite Studies, 2009), 43.

[2] John T. Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army, A.D. 173-337,” Church History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), p. 149-163+200; John Helgeland, Robert J. Daly and J. Patout Burns, Christians and the Military: The Early Experience (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 48-55; Arthur Darby Knock, “The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year” Harvard Theological Review 45 No 4, 1952, p. 223-229.

[3] Luke 3:14; Matthew 8:5-13; Acts 10:1-48.

[4] Peter J. Leithart, Defending Constantine (Madison, Wisconsin: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 260.

[5] Eusebius, The History of the Church, trans. by G.A. Williamson (New York: Penguin Books, 1965), 5.5; Tertullian, Apology, trans. by S. Thelwall (1885), NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm (accessed April 19, 2012), 5; Cassius Dio, Roman History, trans. by Earnest Cary (1927), LacusCurtius, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/home.html (accessed April 12, 2012), 72.8-10; Historia Augusta, trans. by David Magie (1932), LacusCurtius, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Historia_Augusta/home.html (accessed April 12, 2012), Life of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 24.4.

[6] Helgeland, et. al, Christians and the Military: The Early Experience, 32-34.

Note, the Christians did mistakenly assert that the legion’s nickname Fulminata came from this event. In fact, inscriptions show the name dates to the time of Augustus over 150 years earlier. (See Shean, Soldiering for God, 190-191).

[7] John F. Shean, Soldiering for God: Christianity and the Roman Army (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2010), 183.

[8] Vassilios Tzaferis, “Inscribed ‘To God Jesus Christ’: Early Christian Prayer Hall Found in Megiddo Prison,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (March/April 2007), available online at: http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/oldest-church-02.asp

[9] Carly Silver, “Dura-Europos: Crossroad of Cultures,” Archaeology, August 11, 2010 (online feature) http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/dura_europos/ (accessed April 19, 2010).

[10] Shean, Soldiering for God, 193-194.

[11] Tertullian, Apology, 30, 32, 42.

[12] Tertullian, Apology, 37, 42.

[13] “Tertullian,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm; “Montanists,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm; Tertullian, On The Military Crown, trans. by S. Thelwall (1885), NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0301.htm (accessed April 19, 2012), 2.

[14] Tertullian, On Idolatry, trans. by S. Thelwall (1885), NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm (accessed April 19, 2012), 19.

[15] Tertullian, On the Military Crown, 1-2, 7-10, 12.

[16] Tertullian, On the Military Crown, 11.

[17] Origen, On The Military Crown, trans. by Frederick Crombie (1885), NewAdvent.org, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0416.htm (accessed April 19, 2012), 8.68-73.

[18] Leithart, Defending Constantine, 269.

[19] Leithart, Defending Constantine, 264-265.

[20] Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, Jesus for President (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2008), 156; Shean, Soldiering for God, 113-114.

For more on the spread of Christianity, see Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity (HarperOne, 1997).

[21] Shean, Soldiering for God, 143-144, 155, 207-209, 244.

[22] Yoder, Early Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution, 50; John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Public & Evangelical (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997), 70 n. 14.

[23] A Companion to the Roman Army, ed. by Paul Erdkamp (London: Blackwell, 2011), 427.

[24] Helgeland, “Christians and the Roman Army, A.D. 173-337,” 162-163.

[25] Helgeland, et. al, Christians and the Military: The Early Experience, 56-65; Shean, Soldiering for God, 186-205.

[26] Eusebius, The History of the Church, 9.8.

[27] Shean, Soldiering for God, 202-203.

[28] Leithart, Defending Constantine, 278.

Image Sources: (banner) http://www.amazon.com/The-Letter-Scroll-Archaeology-Tells/dp/B004JZWK2I; http://www.hijclothing.com/?p=499; Loading Image... (Body) http://employees.oneonta.edu/farberas/arth/arth212/late_antiquity_imp_image.html; Loading Image...; http://www.amazon.com/The-Letter-Scroll-Archaeology-Tells/dp/B004JZWK2I; http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/dura_europos/; http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2010/01/the-church-in-the-house-in-dura-europos.html; http://www.itsgila.com/highlightsarmageddon.htm; Loading Image...

Article © Christopher Jones 2012.
PATRICK
2013-10-03 16:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Thus those involved in wars disobeyed God's words at Mt 5:44, Mt
26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4 to name a few. They will be held
accountaable for their unscriptural actions.
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY

The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
says:


The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.

The first condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is
harming the nation or the community of nations. One cannot go to war
simply to expand one's sphere of influence, conquer new territory,
subjugate peoples, or obtain wealth. One only can go to war to counter
aggression.
James
2013-10-04 15:36:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Thus those involved in wars disobeyed God's words at Mt 5:44, Mt
26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4 to name a few. They will be held
accountaable for their unscriptural actions.
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
The first condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is
harming the nation or the community of nations. One cannot go to war
simply to expand one's sphere of influence, conquer new territory,
subjugate peoples, or obtain wealth. One only can go to war to counter
aggression.
Well, to my knowledge, the Crusades was one sided. The Catholic Church
was determined to made those 'heathens' pay for their sins. Either
accept Christ, or die. Not only die, but get TORTURED. The crusading
armies went and conquered lands. They did what they were not supposed
to do and "expand one's sphere of influence, conquer new territory,
subjugate peoples,"

And what about WWII in America? No one was blowing up land here in the
mainland, so according to their own charter, they should have left
things alone until the Germans attacked the mainland. (I can see your
point on the Japanese since they did attack land bases.)

At any rate, none of them obeyed Jesus' words, who make no exceptions
at Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4. The Catholics used
the motto 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead'.

The Catholics didn't trust God and Jesus that they were aware what was
going on, and would have acted accordingly. But no one gave them a
chance to act. So God let them have their way, to their own detriment.


James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
PATRICK
2013-10-04 17:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by PATRICK
Post by James
Thus those involved in wars disobeyed God's words at Mt 5:44, Mt
26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4 to name a few. They will be held
accountaable for their unscriptural actions.
JUST WAR DOCTRINE TODAY
The most authoritative and up-to-date expression of just war doctrine
is found in paragraph 2309 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require
rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it
subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the
same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or
community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be
impractical or ineffective;
there must be serious prospects of success;
the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs
very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the
"just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral
legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have
responsibility for the common good.
The first condition indicates that there must be an aggressor who is
harming the nation or the community of nations. One cannot go to war
simply to expand one's sphere of influence, conquer new territory,
subjugate peoples, or obtain wealth. One only can go to war to counter
aggression.
Well, to my knowledge, the Crusades was one sided.
Really?
Do you think the Pope just decided to go out and murder a bunch of
civic minded citizens?
You are one stupid dork.
Do you have images of Crusades history from Hollywood where glorious
and righteous warriors leading the Christian Crusades in the form of
gallant knights, anointed by God to save the Holy Land from the
infidel?
Again, you are one stupid dork.

Pilgrimage routes, long protected by the Byzantines and friendly Arab
rulers, were closed down: Christians could no longer walk where Jesus
had walked. Robbers and thieves attacked Christians who only wished
to make a pilgrimage to the place where Jesus lived and died.

The Byzantine emperor Alexius I appealed to the West for help. In 1095
Pope Urban II responded; in a speech delivered at Clermont, in central
France, he called for a crusade to save the Christian East from Islam.
Seljuk Turks, Urban reportedly said, were disemboweling Christians and
dumping the bloody viscera on church altars and baptismal fonts. Those
who joined this crusade, or “took the cross,” the pope announced,
would have their sins absolved, for God himself desired that
Christianity recover Jerusalem.

What the Crusaders really built, however, were churches, a number of
which still survive in excellent condition. East of the city, on the
Mount of Olives, they built the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin over
an earlier Byzantine structure, which, according to tradition,
contained the tomb of Mary. In this church the Crusaders placed the
tomb of Queen Melisende (1131–1152), the daughter of Baldwin II. Just
north of the northeast corner of the Temple Mount, they erected the
splendid Romanesque Church of St. Anne (above). The Crusaders’ most
enduring architectural legacy, however, is their rebuilding of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre (see photo of Church of the Holy
Sepulchre in “The Holiest Ground in the World”), on the foundations of
the fourth-century A.D. church built by Constantine, supposedly over
Jesus’ tomb.
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/what-were-the-crusades-and-how-did-they-impact-jerusalem/
Post by James
The Catholic Church
was determined to made those 'heathens' pay for their sins. Either
accept Christ, or die. Not only die, but get TORTURED. The crusading
armies went and conquered lands. They did what they were not supposed
to do and "expand one's sphere of influence, conquer new territory,
subjugate peoples,"
<yawn>
Post by James
And what about WWII in America? No one was blowing up land here in the
mainland, so according to their own charter, they should have left
things alone until the Germans attacked the mainland. (I can see your
point on the Japanese since they did attack land bases.)
You forget that the fuckin Nazis were sending rockets into the city of
London, murdering nerous innocents.
Post by James
At any rate, none of them obeyed Jesus' words, who make no exceptions
at Mt 5:44, Mt 26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4. The Catholics used
the motto 'damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead'.
The Catholics didn't trust God and Jesus that they were aware what was
going on, and would have acted accordingly. But no one gave them a
chance to act. So God let them have their way, to their own detriment.
What is accordingly?
Where was God in Rwanda?
in Cambodia?
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-06 15:39:50 UTC
Permalink
The Politically Incorrect Guide
to Islam (and the Crusades)
by Robert Spencer (Author)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131

Islam expert Robert Spencer reveals Islam's ongoing, unshakable quest for global conquest and why the West today faces the same threat as the Crusaders did--and what we can learn from their experience.

A clarion call for the defense of the West before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author

"A much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder." -- Bruce Thornton, historian

"An enormous amount of well-researched material. Throws the ball back into the camp of Arabist historians." -- Walid Phares, terror analyst

"Assails, with much erudition, the taboos imposed by the Politically Correct League." -- Bat Ye’or, historian

"The courageous Robert Spencer busts myths and tells truths about jihadists that no one else will tell." -- Michelle Malkin, bestselling author and columnist

Editorial Reviews
Review
"A clarion call for the defense of the West before it is too late." -- Ibn Warraq, author

"A much-needed antidote to the poisonous propaganda that compromises our current battle against jihadist murder." -- Bruce Thornton, historian

"An enormous amount of well-researched material. Throws the ball back into the camp of Arabist historians." -- Walid Phares, terror analyst

"Assails, with much erudition, the taboos imposed by the Politically Correct League." -- Bat Ye’or, historian

"The courageous Robert Spencer busts myths and tells truths about jihadists that no one else will tell." -- Michelle Malkin, bestselling author and columnist
From the Back Cover
Everything (well, almost everything) you know about Islam and the Crusades is wrong because most textbooks and popular history books are written by left-wing academics and Islamic apologists who justify their contemporary political agendas with contrived historical "facts." But fear not: Robert Spencer (author of the bestseller Islam Unveiled) refutes the popular myths in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). Spencer reveals facts that you won't be taught in school and will never hear on the evening news, supplies a revealing list of "Books You Must Not Read" (as far as the PC left is concerned), and takes you on a fast-paced politically incorrect tour of Islamic teaching and Crusades history that will give you all the information you need to understand the true nature of the global conflict America faces today.
duke
2013-10-04 11:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by vince garcia
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
military and kill the enemy?
yes
As a matter of fact, the record of Christians in military or political
service is shown from Acts, the epistles, on into Christian history,
including Christian Jews fighting in the bar Kochba revolt until he
declared himself to be the messiah. There is much further evidence of
Christians in the military in the 2nd century on, which jim and i have
posted before, but I will not repeat it yet again
Thus those involved in wars disobeyed God's words at Mt 5:44, Mt
26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4 to name a few. They will be held
accountaable for their unscriptural actions.
God clearly advised us to follow our duly elected civil authorities.
Post by James
These accounts plus John 18:10,11 gives us the whole story. Jesus
told his disciples to be armed right before his betrayal. A total
quantity of just two swords would certainly not be enough to defend
themselves from the approaching mob.(Jesus knew he had to die to
fulfill scripture, so he would not perform a miracle here. See Mt
26:53,54) So why did he tell them to get the swords?
Did you know that the EARLY Christians, would not even partake of
government politics?
The second century writer, Justin Martyr (155-160 A.D.) also knew
Christians' views then on carnal warfare. In "Dialogue with Trypho, a
Jew", CXX, he wrote,
"We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every
wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike
weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements
of tillage."
Yes, the early Christians followed Jesus' and the Apostles' teachings
on not getting involved with carnal warfare. True Christians today do
likewise.
Professor Robert L.Wilken in "The Christians as the Romans Saw Them"
wrote, "Christians not only refused [Roman] military service but they
would not accept public office nor assume any responsibility for the
governing of the cities".
Edward Gibbon in "History of Christianity" wrote concerning
Christians, "refused to take any active part in the civil
administration or the military defence of the empire,..it was
impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty,
could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.".
Heckel and Sigman in "-On the Road to Civilization, A World History"
wrote, "Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with
little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . .Christians
refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would
not hold political office."
Regardless of how religious leaders of today justify professed
Christians engaging in warfare, the
Arnold Toynbee in "An Historian's Approach to Religion" talks about a
third century martyr named
Maximilianus, who refused induction into the Roman military. He cites
Maximilianus as saying, "I
have a conscientious objection to military service: I am a Christian.
. . . I can't serve; I can't sin
against my conscience... I won't serve. You may behead me, but I won't
serve the powers of This
World; I will serve my God."
H. Ingli James in "Treasury of the Christian World" wrote, "Origen
[who lived in the second and
third centuries of the Common Era] . . . remarks that 'the Christian
Church cannot engage in war
against any nation. They have learned from their Leader that they are
children of peace.' In that
period many Christians were martyred for refusing military service."
The second century Historian Justin Martyr in "Dialogue With Trypho, a
Jew" (CX) wrote, "We
who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness,
have each through the whole
earth changed our warlike weapons,-our swords into ploughshares, and
our spears into implements
of tillage."
The historian Will Durant in "Caesar and Christ" wrote, ""To a
Christian his religion was something
apart from and superior to political society; his highest allegiance
belonged not to Caesar but to
Christ. . . . The detachment of the Christian from earthly affairs
seemed to the pagan a flight from
civic duty, a weakening of the national fiber and will. Tertullian
advised Christians to refuse military
service;"
A Swiss Catholic publication "Orientierung" wrote about the patron
saint of France, Saint Martin
(316-397) It said, ""That this highly renowned saint of Western
Christianity resigned from military
service out of Christian conviction, considering being a soldier and a
Christian at the same time
incompatible, has always been embarrassing to Catholic theology. This
fact-either deliberately or
undeliberately-has simply been kept quiet."
The religious magazine "The Christian Century" stated, "The earliest
Christians did not serve in the armed forces. Roland Bainton notes
that 'from the end of the New Testament period to the decade A.D.
170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army.' . .
. Only gradually did Christians abandon their opposition to military
service . . . Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as
authorizing Christians' participation in military activities, 'just
war' soon became whatever war their government engaged in."
The historian Ernest William Barnes in "The Rise of Christianity"
wrote, "A careful review of all the information available goes to show
that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius [emperor from 161 to 180
C.E.], no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a
Christian, remained in military service."
Philip Schaff in "History of the Christian Church" wrote, "The
conscientious refusal of the
Christians to pay divine honors to the emperor and his statue, and to
take part in any idolatrous
ceremonies at public festivities, their aversion to the imperial
military service, their disregard for
politics and depreciation of all civil and temporal affairs as
compared with the spiritual and eternal
interests of man, their close brotherly union and frequent meetings,
drew upon them the suspicion
of hostility to the Caesars and the Roman people."
This is how the early Christians interpreted the Holy Scriptures on
the subject we are discussing.
James
John 4:23,24
www.jw.org
The dukester, American - American

********************************************
Repeal Obama - most impotent president ever.
Five major US scandals and still going strong:
a)Fast/Furious,b)IRS,c)NSA d)News Phone Records,
e)Selective enforcement of environmental laws
********************************************
vince garcia
2013-10-04 11:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by James
Post by vince garcia
Post by James
Wars and the 'Christian' Churches
Does the Bible show that it is alright for a Christian to join the
military and kill the enemy?
yes
As a matter of fact, the record of Christians in military or political
service is shown from Acts, the epistles, on into Christian history,
including Christian Jews fighting in the bar Kochba revolt until he
declared himself to be the messiah. There is much further evidence of
Christians in the military in the 2nd century on, which jim and i have
posted before, but I will not repeat it yet again
Thus those involved in wars disobeyed God's words at Mt 5:44, Mt
26:52, Mt 19:19, and 2 Co 10:3,4 to name a few. They will be held
accountaable for their unscriptural actions.
These accounts plus John 18:10,11 gives us the whole story. Jesus
told his disciples to be armed right before his betrayal. A total
quantity of just two swords would certainly not be enough to defend
themselves from the approaching mob.(Jesus knew he had to die to
fulfill scripture, so he would not perform a miracle here. See Mt
26:53,54) So why did he tell them to get the swords?
Did you know that the EARLY Christians, would not even partake of
government politics?
Quoting false or ignorant statements from incompetent sources (which we
have seen JWs do as a matter of course) with a "dr" prefixed to their
names does not make your false statements true. We have gone over this
before. History from COMPETENT sources refutes your claim. I have
already referred you to the fact that THE BIBLE shows believers in the
military and in the government, and HISTORY shows thousands of Christian
jews fighting in the bar kochba revolt, only 30 years after John's
death. Beyond this, we have posted before both historical and
archeological record outside the Bible of Christians in the 2nd-3rd
century in military and governmental service, so your statements/claims
have been soundly refuted. I won't repost the same info yet again. If
Jim wants to, he can.
j***@satx.rr.com
2013-10-07 05:00:12 UTC
Permalink
On Friday, October 4, 2013 6:36:35 AM UTC-5, vince garcia wrote:

" Beyond this, we have posted before both historical and
archeological record outside the Bible of Christians in the 2nd-3rd
century in military and governmental service, so your statements/claims
have been soundly refuted. I won't repost the same info yet again. If
Jim wants to, he can."

In Acts 10 Peter goes to a gentile centurion,
Baptizes him,and no record that he is told to leave the
military.

Acts Chapter 10

1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

Notice: "A devout man" " a centurion",so the Bible praises
a military man. I pray God says the same about me.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

5 And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter:

6 He lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side: he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do.

7 And when the angel which spake unto Cornelius was departed, he called two of his household servants, and a devout soldier of them that waited on him continually;

8 And when he had declared all these things unto them, he sent them to Joppa.

9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 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,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.

21 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?

22 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.

23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.

24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

27 And as he talked with him, he went in, and found many that were come together.

28 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.

29 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?

30 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,

31 And said, Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.

32 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.

33 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.

34 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.

36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:)

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;

38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

39 And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...