> General Discussions
Paul's contradiction of Jesus?
Kat:
Hi Pinko,
--- Quote ---Are you saying that Satan was merely lying about being the 'god of this world'? Because I didn't know what he said was in dispute, biblically speaking. Do you dispute it?
--- End quote ---
This was part of my post "Satan may be the ruler of this world, but he could not circumvents God's plan."
What I think is that when Christ said "Get behind Me," to Satan, Christ was telling Satan that He was not here to worship and serve Satan and I gave Scriptures that showed what He came and intended to do. Christ finished His statement by saying that; "For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve."
We have Scripture that says Satan is the ruler of this world.
Joh 16:11 of judgment, because the ruler (Strong's G758 chief (ruler), magistrate, prince, ruler) of this world is judged.
But Satan said;
Luke 4:6 And the devil said to Him, "All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for this has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish.
Where do we have Scripture that says Satan can "give it to whomever I wish." ??? That's what I meant when I said Satan "could not circumvents God's plan." And I gave Scripture that show as well that Satan was "a liar and the father of it." (John 8:44)
mercy, peace and love
Kat
pinko:
--- Quote ---As Christians, we are not to revolt against authority, even if that authority is evil. We are supposed to believe that God placed those people above us for a reason. We are supposed to serve them, even if they are evil, as if we are serving Christ.
--- End quote ---
Marques, you found the one tiny little quibble in the letter that I probably would dispute-- at least partially.
I agree that we cannot "revolt" against authority. But, ironically, the statist 'render unto Ceasar' crowd does not believe this. Their theory always begins to break down when confronted with the fact that this very nation was born out of a violent revolution against the "powers that be"! That the 'Founding Fathers' of America were themselves revolutionaries who rendered unto their Caesar the barrel of a musket seems utterly lost on them. I always found this strange.. So then, if we are to maintain this christian concept of rightful human authorities, who are we to submit to? The usurpers of the British Crown, or Mother England?
Again, I'd ask: are we to "resist evil", or are we to participate in it? What say you? If we are not to resist evil---and instead to "serve evil"---then we must account for all of scripture which teaches to the contrary.. But if we ARE in fact to "resist evil", how then can we in good conscience render our wills and our labor to enlarging it? How exactly does one "serve his country" AND "serve Christ" by picking up a rifle and killing the enemy of his rulers? The casualties of wars, let us be very clear, are not even the enemies of those soldiers who slew them! No indeed--they slew them because they believed they were the enemies of their Caesar! They murdered for a principle, or for a paycheck or for some wicked delusion of godly "patriotism". It is such a cowardly excuse to say my sin is not sin because I did it for my country! Might I point out that war criminals always excuse themselves by saying "I was only following orders"...I was "only submitting to authority"..
Now you will say, "well that contradicts God's law, so you had a duty to disobey." Given, some might NOT say that..(sad) But where do we draw the line? I KNOW the evil that governments do. I know their murders, their thefts, their idolatries... I know of NO GOOD in their laws and their systems of justice; their false economies and their temple money changers; their fraud, coercion and uninterrupted lies.. What duty then do I have to "submit" to any semblance of participation in that? Must I vote in elections too to be right with Paul and Peter? Did Jesus pay 'his taxes'? Hmmm...I'm not so sure he did! Perhaps that is why he was officially charged with the crime, and why we have no testimony that he ever denied it.. Maybe?
--- Quote ---This is from the email to Ray and exactly what Peter and Paul are stating...but you started this entire thread stating that Paul and Peter maybe contradicting Christ with this same message.
--- End quote ---
Well, was Peter ever wrong about anything? ;) (I speak as a fool).
pinko:
Beloved: For the life of me, I cannot figure out if you are for my anarchism or against it.
The things you are posting--to my mind--only seem to strengthen what I believe.
--- Quote ---You are truly missing one major point the spiritual versus the physical
Here is a scripture where Jeusus lays it out...
(Mat 17:24) And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?
(Mat 17:25) He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?
(Mat 17:26) Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.
(Mat 17:27) Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.
he paid them...don't you see the spiritual, he took money out of the sea (world) out of fish (make them fishers of men...the saving of all)
--- End quote ---
I am not missing this major point at all. I just fail to see how it contradicts what I am saying. Did you think this passage meant Jesus believed he was liable to pay the tax? Check what's bolded and underlined. I think you have it exactly wrong.. He paid the tax in that instance because PETER had ignorantly committed him to it by inserting his foot into his mouth as he was wont to do.. This was clearly a rebuke of Peter.. Jesus only paid it, in his words, "so as not to offend them"! NOT because he believed it was right. If he thought he legitimately owed it, why didn't he just have someone reach into the purse and give them the coin? Matter of fact, do you have any evidence that Jesus ever had, or used any money of his own? I don't think he did.
As for Ray's comments in the emails, I think my view would generally be in agreement. I'd only take issue with his notion that "Caesar's image" on the coin meant it was Caesars...for this makes no sense at all if money has any meaning as a medium of exchange. ( If this were so, then my paycheck belongs to Ben Franklin and George Washington and I should make haste to give it back to the rightful owners!) If Jesus wanted to make the point that all Rome's coins belonged to Caesar, he would not have asked whose image it beared, but rather, he'd of asked "Whose coin is this?" Why did he obfuscate? As Ray asked, why didn't he just outright say, "yes you should pay the tax!" ??
I don't know, man...I think you are leaning towards the Dark Side on this one, Beloved.
pinko:
--- Quote from: Falconn003 on January 18, 2009, 08:36:10 PM ---
I am more concern with you being honest with yourself 1st of all, then just inserting anything of Non Spiritual.
Example::
pinko "I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is)..
Can you not see by what authority you just stated this to be self evident and true, but is a LIE.
Now this is but a simple definition::
--- Quote ---It is fitting that the word "anarchism" derives from anarkhia, the Greek word for "nonrule," for that is what anarchists essentially espouse: the eradication of government in favor of a natural social order. A libertarian variant of socialism, the IDEALS of anarchy DATE BACK at least AS FAR AS the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. Elements of anarchic thought were evident in the seeds of the American Revolution and Thomas Jefferson's writings often hinted at anarchist thinking.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
It is not a lie, Roger. I really do consider myself an anarchist--defined correctly, as I already noted-- and I really do think Jesus fits that definition.
The passage I quoted earlier in Mark 10:42 actually renders "and Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles..." from the Greek word archō (Strongs G757).
He actually said (as recorded in the Greek manuscripts), the Gentile rulers were "archists"... No? But that YOU (his disciples) SHALL NOT be so.. I think the root word dates back a bit farther than the 18th century. And if anyone coined the term 'anarchists' before that, it would have had to been Jesus in Mark 10:42.. Just my opinion here, but certainly not a LIE, as you say.
--- Quote ---So was/is Jesus an "anarchist" ?
--- End quote ---
Evidently so. And no, he was not espousing any political philosophy...Quite the contrary, qua the very definition of the word. ..is all I am saying.
--- Quote ---Let us simplify this thread and your search for this knowledge.
Is there a contradiction or is there not a contradiction ?
--- End quote ---
I think perhaps you see one, but have suppressed it. I may once have thought there was a contradiction, but I brought it to light, faced it, and now know there is not. Paul agrees with Jesus on the matter. They were both outlaws, choosing to obey God rather than man. Both were summarily executed by the governing authorities because of it.
Dave in Tenn:
A couple of random points that come to mind from reading and contemplating the thread and trying to understand your political history.
1. This forum (and the people and elect of God) are not in the least limited to Americans. We have a peculiar History just as every other nation on earth has.
2. One of the things that drove me from the church more than 20 years ago (if not directly into the arms of truth) was the growing coziness and the becoming of bedfellows of Evangelical christianity and conservative politics. You've said a similar thing happened to you. But to my mind, Jesus and the Gospel is no more left-anarchist than He was/is conservative or fascist. Whichever 'side' seeks to claim Christ's membership in their political club does damage to both Christ and themselves. Niether side can make the Master a servant of ideology. We have to come to Him (and to Scripture) as babes.
3. I'm without E-sword at the moment, but read the account of Joshua planning to take Jericho and what the conversation was between him and the Captain of the Hosts before the battle. I believe you will see when the Captain was asked if He was friend or foe, that He did NOT answer the question posed, but rather defined what was going on. In essence, He said I am not choosing sides, I am taking over. What 'we' are trying to get over to you is that Jesus is LORD. Everything else--theology, tradition, politics, our very carnal nature--has to get out of the way. Indeed, it has to die.
4. You may well accept that Jesus is Lord but be brandishing the idea that He (as Lord) is to be informing your politics. Or maybe that He as Lord is (or ought to be) rearranging the externals (with you as His disciple) to bring them in line with His Will. That's revolution, in a nutshell, isn't it? I suppose that's one way to look at what He will accomplish when He returns and 'takes over'. His will is HIS will, however, and He taught us to submit to it whatever our desires might be for things external. THY will be done. THY Kingdom come.
I've had a hard time reconciling how to live with the certainty of God's sovereignty and my lack of what is called a free will, as an example. I had to come to a point of 'pretending' or 'assuming' such was true before I could see that it was. Such an excercise might be valuable to you for a while...to come to Christ through the scriptures without any preconcieved notion and allow Him to speak to you and define your relationship.
I'm not exactly ancient, but I am old enough to remember when 'revolution' was brewing in the west. I studied some, and was around to see others. Two things put the final nails in the coffin of my trust that 'it' would bring about anything good--Pol Pot and a viewing of Monty Python's Life of Brian. :D Never again.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version