bible-truths.com/forums
=> General Discussions => Topic started by: pinko on January 18, 2009, 01:04:43 AM
-
I've been reading here for about 8 or 10 months I suppose...Have read everything Ray has writ and listened to all the bible teachings on audio. And I am grateful for all he's shared with us. Most of which, I believed inside already, only couldn't reconcile it with scripture as I'd been dutifully indoctrinated during my life in 'Christendom'... But now I know better.
One area of thought I've not seen much from Ray, however is his views on the state and politics in general. I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is).. And I've recently seen what could be considered a "contradiction" in the NT teachings of Paul and Peter vs. those of Jesus. But, I know, 'the scriptures do not contradict'...which is why I'm asking.
Paul's notorious pericope in Romans 13 is a problem.. It's a stumbling block for many.. I've probably read more commentary on this passage than most and none have remedied my cognitive dissonance. Perhaps some here can help?
Here's my dilemma: Paul says "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God and those authorities who exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Then of course, there's 1 Peter 2:13-18...(you guys can read it yourselves)...More of the same.
Now I know much of the NT teachings seem to contradict this teaching--in spirit--if not in letter, but one incident in particular is recorded in 3 of the Gospels---namely Jesus' temptation by Satan, wherein he was offered "all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, 'To you I will give their glory and all this authority, for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you then will worship me, it will all be yours.'"
Jesus did not dispute this claim of Satan that all earthly (governmental) authority--all states--were rightfully the Devil's; were given to him; and therefore flowed from him to all the kings of the earth.
How then does this passage not undeniably refute Paul's (and Peter's) claim that 'all government authority comes from God.'...and that we should even "honor the emperor" (and thus his 'authority')?
Jesus had nothing but utter disdain for the 'governing authorities' of his day..Matter of fact, he was actually executed for the crime of treason to Rome.. Remember he was brought before Pilate with the accusation that "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Lk 23:1-2) None of which were denied...
How then can Jesus and Paul both be right?
-
I found this thread in the forum archives, which seems to address your question, or at least part of it. Don't know if it suffices, and may require more insight from others with more knowledge of the Scriptures, but I hope it provides some assistance.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4645.0.html
Kind regards,
Rob
-
Pinko, I believe you just answered your own question! Governments are put in place by God. How and Why? God has made the devil the god of this world, (2 Cor. 4:4) if God gives authority to and institutes governments and if satan is the god of this world, then there is no contradiction! We obey the civil authorities because God says to! satan is the god of this world because God says so! Every form of earthly government is corrupt and sinful, because satan is the head of it! satan is the head of it because God put him there!
I know that is really too simplistic and hopefully I don't offend you with preschool answers!
Some things are just not that hard to understand. You will remember that Jesus paid his taxes (the money in the fish). That was an example of how to obey those in authority over you.
Anarchy isn't the answer to a corrupt government because as long as satan is lord of this world, even that would be corrupted and sinful! the world is what it is because God has ordained it to be so! Period.
That's the way I see it!
Kathy :D
-
We do have to obey God rather than man, when it comes to civil matters we obey the civil law, when it comes to God's commands we obey God. If the two conflict then God's law has to be obeyed no matter the consequence!
Kathy
-
Hi Pinko,
I would like to have a discussion with you; however please review the red highlited part of your post
in relation to the scriptures i posted below. Jesus was not Crucified for treason to Rome.
You say; you have read all of Rays papers and listened to all the audio; so why then are you finding
contradiction. I am not disputing just asking for clarification of your post and the Scriptures.
I've been reading here for about 8 or 10 months I suppose...Have read everything Ray has writ and listened to all the bible teachings on audio. And I am grateful for all he's shared with us. Most of which, I believed inside already, only couldn't reconcile it with scripture as I'd been dutifully indoctrinated during my life in 'Christendom'... But now I know better.
One area of thought I've not seen much from Ray, however is his views on the state and politics in general. I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is).. And I've recently seen what could be considered a "contradiction" in the NT teachings of Paul and Peter vs. those of Jesus. But, I know, 'the scriptures do not contradict'...which is why I'm asking.
Paul's notorious pericope in Romans 13 is a problem.. It's a stumbling block for many.. I've probably read more commentary on this passage than most and none have remedied my cognitive dissonance. Perhaps some here can help?
Here's my dilemma: Paul says "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God and those authorities who exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
Then of course, there's 1 Peter 2:13-18...(you guys can read it yourselves)...More of the same.
Now I know much of the NT teachings seem to contradict this teaching--in spirit--if not in letter, but one incident in particular is recorded in 3 of the Gospels---namely Jesus' temptation by Satan, wherein he was offered "all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, 'To you I will give their glory and all this authority, for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you then will worship me, it will all be yours.'"
Jesus did not dispute this claim of Satan that all earthly (governmental) authority--all states--were rightfully the Devil's; were given to him; and therefore flowed from him to all the kings of the earth.
How then does this passage not undeniably refute Paul's (and Peter's) claim that 'all government authority comes from God.'...and that we should even "honor the emperor" (and thus his 'authority')?
Jesus had nothing but utter disdain for the 'governing authorities' of his day..Matter of fact, he was actually executed for the crime of treason to Rome.. Remember he was brought before Pilate with the accusation that "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Lk 23:1-2) None of which were denied...
How then can Jesus and Paul both be right?
11-And Jesus stood before the governor: and the governor asked him, saying, Are you the King of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, You say.
12-And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.
13-Then said Pilate to him, Hear you not how many things they witness against you?
14-And he answered him to never a word; so that the governor marveled greatly.
15-Now at that feast the governor was wont to release to the people a prisoner, whom they would.
16-And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.
17-Therefore when they were gathered together, Pilate said to them, Whom will you that I release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ?
18-For he knew that for envy they had delivered him.
19-When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, Have you nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of him.
20-But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.
21-The governor answered and said to them, Whether of the two will you that I release to you? They said, Barabbas.
22-Pilate said to them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say to him, Let him be crucified.
23-And the governor said, Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24-When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see you to it.
25-Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
26-Then released he Barabbas to them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
george. ???
-
Hi Pinko
Ray has said that most of his emails he receives are questions on contradictions. We know that the carnal mind sees contradiction. The spiritual mind sees the mystery of God's Plan and Purpose to cause His transformation of us into His Son. The way that God does this is expounded throughout the teachings here in Bible Truths (BT)
What is of concern to me is that there are seductive teachers outside of BT who's conclusions that Paul is a deception appointed by God in His Plan is not what is taught here in BT. Paul is seen as a spiritual giant here in BT and not as a spiritual deception.
As Jesus said, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Non can serve two masters.
Does Jesus contradict Himself?
Arc
-
George— If not for treason, why then did Rome crucify him?
23-And the governor said, Why, what evil has he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
24-When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see you to it.
Are you saying Pilate believed he was innocent yet crucified him anyway? If so, then his “washing of the hands” was a farce.. Of course he would have been 100% responsible for the death of an innocent man as he both knew it was evil, and had it in his power to stop it. And did not.
I’m not “finding a contradiction”, only an apparent contradiction... Kind of like when Ray sees in Genesis that God “brought a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy ALL FLESH, wherein is the breath of life from under heaven and EVERY THING that is in the earth shall die”… it doesn’t yet contradict his belief that it was only a local flood, and in fact not all flesh died.
We’re supposed to be dividing the spiritual from the physical here, right?
-
I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is)..
Hello Pinko,
If by definition you live your life by this insertion into your post(anarchist),me thinks that the Spiritual condensation that we all seek here is missing.The Father is most certainly in charge of everything that Jesus had to endure through His commission while walking and ministering,as is our Father in charge and responsible for the entirety of all things. As has been said so many times here in the past,when one starts to see the Spiritual in place of the carnal the process is so enlightening that one wants to scream for joy,wanting to yell it from the the roof tops ;D.
When the times come to me (and there are many) that I cant quite put my finger on a verse or scripture, that is the time I put on my Spiritual thinking cap and to remember that it is Spirit that really matters, and not the physical.It seems that once one starts to understand Spirit,and believe me, I have much yet to understand,then, and only then, does one start to understand what to be free is all about :)
Peace...Mark
-
Perhaps this will explain it better for you Pinko
In statement (1) the editor of Strong’s cites seven more Scriptures that are used symbolically and figuratively to demonstrate "the holiness of God, which CONSUMES ALL that is inconsistent therewith." It doesn’t consume their physical bodies, nor does it burn their physical bodies to produce pain, but it "CONSUMES" all that is not consistent with God’s holiness. And these are the things of the heart, mind and spirit! It is not the "body" that needs chastisement and purification, it is the MIND, HEART, AND SPIRIT that needs purification from unholiness. You cannot burn pride and vanity out of one’s heart with REAL FIRE (besides the advocates of torturing with real fire for all eternity admit that it accomplishes NOTHING). It takes the fire of God’s spirit to burn away evils that have their origin in the realm of spirit.http://bible-truths.com/lake3.html
Arc
-
Hi Pinko
Ray has said that most of his emails he receives are questions on contradictions. We know that the carnal mind sees contradiction. The spiritual mind sees the mystery of God's Plan and Purpose to cause His transformation of us into His Son. The way that God does this is expounded throughout the teachings here in Bible Truths (BT)
What is of concern to me is that there are seductive teachers outside of BT who's conclusions that Paul is a deception appointed by God in His Plan is not what is taught here in BT. Paul is seen as a spiritual giant here in BT and not as a spiritual deception.
As Jesus said, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Non can serve two masters.
Does Jesus contradict Himself?
Arc
First, I do not think Paul is anything less than a 'spiritual giant' myself. I'm just not so sure that everything that was attributed to Paul was actually said by Paul. As Ray has aptly pointed out, there's been some tinkering with the scriptures over the years... I choose to look at the Bible as a whole--and it should be consistant as a whole. When something doesn't seem to fit, I have to question whether 'I'm reading it right'... After all, my disdain for the concept of an eternal hell and my failure to see how it could be biblical at all is how I stumbled onto this site in the first place. So, some things are not as they seem, no?
But to answer your question---no, I don't think Jesus contradicts himself at all when he said to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. No one can serve two masters."
In fact, I take that quite literally. I think Jesus meant exactly what he said...Obviously, since no man CAN serve two masters, any who would serve Jesus, could not also serve Caesar! Further, since "all the world is the Lord's and everything in it", I reckon we should be "rendering" all to God, and nothing to Caesar.. Which is precisely what Jesus in effect said.
Matter of fact, this 'render unto Caesar' thing needs to be destroyed once and for all. It has been so misconstrued and purposely twisted, it is now being held to teach the exact opposite of what was intended. I hope Ray will take this matter up one day with the same vigor as he dismantled the eternal hell error.
-
I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is)..
Hello Pinko,
If by definition you live your life by this insertion into your post(anarchist),me thinks that the Spiritual condensation that we all seek here is missing.
Hi Mark-- that word (anarchist) has been terribly besmirched by those who have used it to justify their lawlessness and ungodliness over the centuries. I use it, however, in it's original meaning...the sense in which Jesus used it when he said this:
25and Jesus having called them near, said, `Ye have known that the rulers of the nations do exercise lordship over them, and those great do exercise authority over them,
26but not so shall it be among you, but whoever may will among you to become great, let him be your ministrant;
27and whoever may will among you to be first, let him be your servant;
28even as the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.' (from Matt., chap 20)
And the servant is not greater than his master.. If jesus was here to serve, then are we here to serve and not to rule over others. Archists live their philosophy of dominating others... and they do it ultimately with the threat of force or fraud. That is the only way people can rule over others. But the principles which Jesus espoused (remember the sermon on the mount) are ANarchist. We, children of the kingdom of God, are NOT LIKE the archists... we who would be great in the kingdom, as Christ said, will be the servants of others.
-
I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is)..
Definiton of anarchism from Free Dictionary website:
anarchism
noun
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
4. A political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals.
Pinko,
What scriptures do you believe Jesus states and supports these definitions (particularly the ones in bold)?
1. You know the Lord is coming to set up His Kingdom or government, right? [I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom...2 Tim 4:1] and [The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever...Rev 11:15]
2. You know Jesus showed no resistance and/or terrorism when he was oppressed? [He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter...Isa 53:7] and [I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled...Mark 14:49]
3. You know that Jesus never rejected His Father's authority? [My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work...John 4:34] and [The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do...John 5:19]
4. You know that all the voluntary cooperation among individuals still results in wickedness and corruption? [O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always...Deut 5:29] and [And they (people of Babel) said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven (signifying pride, haughtiness, self-worship)...Gen 11:4]
Pinko, this may seem harsh, but one cannot bring the Lord down to where one is with their personal beliefs...we must repent and humble ourselves and the Lord will lift us up. This entire concept is you attempting to bring the Lord into agreement with your personal beliefs...this is a huge idol of the heart that we all have done in one form or the other.
You are even willing to disregard the very words of the apostles Peter and Paul to try and 'conform' Christ to your personal beliefs. You even stated that 'if something doesn't seem to fit, I have to question whether what I'm reading is true'...again, this is that idol of the heart. You are saying if the words of God do not fit with your beliefs, it must be questioned to whether or not it is true. With this line of thinking, (1) you will never humble yourself and question your own heart and intentions, just any of the word of God you believe contradicts your beliefs and (2) you set yourself in your temple (body) as your own god and all must be in agreement with this god.
Pinko, the Lord is changing and conforming our mind to the mind of Christ [Rom 8:29, 12:2] and it is done through humility and being teachable. Attempting to make His Word 'fit' with our beliefs is not that humility or being teachable that is required.
Hope this helps,
Marques
-
Hi Pinko
Ray has said that most of his emails he receives are questions on contradictions. We know that the carnal mind sees contradiction. The spiritual mind sees the mystery of God's Plan and Purpose to cause His transformation of us into His Son. The way that God does this is expounded throughout the teachings here in Bible Truths (BT)
What is of concern to me is that there are seductive teachers outside of BT who's conclusions that Paul is a deception appointed by God in His Plan is not what is taught here in BT. Paul is seen as a spiritual giant here in BT and not as a spiritual deception.
As Jesus said, render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Non can serve two masters.
Does Jesus contradict Himself?
Arc
First, I do not think Paul is anything less than a 'spiritual giant' myself. I'm just not so sure that everything that was attributed to Paul was actually said by Paul. As Ray has aptly pointed out, there's been some tinkering with the scriptures over the years... I choose to look at the Bible as a whole--and it should be consistant as a whole. When something doesn't seem to fit, I have to question whether 'I'm reading it right'... After all, my disdain for the concept of an eternal hell and my failure to see how it could be biblical at all is how I stumbled onto this site in the first place. So, some things are not as they seem, no?
But to answer your question---no, I don't think Jesus contradicts himself at all when he said to "render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. No one can serve two masters."
In fact, I take that quite literally. I think Jesus meant exactly what he said...Obviously, since no man CAN serve two masters, any who would serve Jesus, could not also serve Caesar! Further, since "all the world is the Lord's and everything in it", I reckon we should be "rendering" all to God, and nothing to Caesar.. Which is precisely what Jesus in effect said.
Matter of fact, this 'render unto Caesar' thing needs to be destroyed once and for all. It has been so misconstrued and purposely twisted, it is now being held to teach the exact opposite of what was intended. I hope Ray will take this matter up one day with the same vigor as he dismantled the eternal hell error.
I feel that Father being (Spirit), and then giving Jesus (Spirit) the duty of creation in the physical, ie; all that we as humans can understand and see is with out a doubt a rendering of sorts. We have to be in the physical and at the same time we have to be learning the Spiritual, no? To give on to Ceaser could also be said like to give on to any worldly government.
We as citizens of the world have to follow the rules and laws and regulations in order to keep civil,but ultimately, the reason for being, in the first place, is to learn righteousness and to follow the Spirit of Jesus. So we can not follow two masters,one the world, and the other God,but, I think we do have to follow the physical LAWS in order to keep chaos from setting in and destroying what little peace we do have as a people.
Peace... Mark
-
Hi Pinko,
Jesus did not dispute this claim of Satan that all earthly (governmental) authority--all states--were rightfully the Devil's; were given to him; and therefore flowed from him to all the kings of the earth.
Satan is the ruler of this world only under God's sovereign.
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
The answer Christ gave Satan did not go over his statement point by point, but it clearly shows that Christ certainly did not go along with Satan's statement to Him.
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.
v. 7 Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours."
v. 8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve."'
How then does this passage not undeniably refute Paul's (and Peter's) claim that 'all government authority comes from God.'...and that we should even "honor the emperor" (and thus his 'authority')?
Jesus always states that we should put God first and since the governments of the world were established ultimately by God... So even in all their corruption we should live at peace with this world and that would seem to entail going by their laws the best we can.
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php?topic=5675.0 ------
Rom 13:7 Render to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
This is talking about the laws of the land, the governments, the enforcement people and everything else, and all of the regulations that come out of cities and counties and so on. “…tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom…” You may be familiar with someone who has as much as spit on this. You don’t just have to obey the laws, it says you have to obey the customs too.
---------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
I'm not really understanding why you are combining the words "none can serve two masters" with the verses such as Mark 12:17 Which says "Render unto Caesar..." These were two different situations in one Jesus was talking about your relationship with the government and the other, He is telling the people to lay up treasure in heaven..the relationship between you and your money. Unless I have COMPLETELY missed the meaning of those verses! I know that the Bible is a parable, but sometimes you can take the verses for what they actually say!
Jesus was saying that you obey government authorities, but when it comes to your treasure (whatever that means to you) you must render that unto God because God is the one you serve and not your money!
I understand that we are called to "serve" our country, but in doing that you are not asked (at least right now) to worship your government!
When a circumstance arises for Christians to choose between government and God we must choose God for that's where our heart and our treasure is!
Now these are just my ramblings, BUT sometimes we are too busy concentrating on the wrong things!
Jesus stated it quite simply to me, it means "pay your taxes, serve God, AND don't be attached to your worldly goods!" Easy! :D
Kathy ;)
-
What has struck me about how Ray deals with these 'apparent' contradictions is the way a higher truth emerges when dealing with them. Just because there appears to be two sides to an argument does not mean that one of them is right. Ray doesn't let others frame the 'debate'. He takes the Word as it is and shows how both sides are in error under the Higher Truth. If it seems to you that Paul and Peter are saying one thing about our relationship to authority and Jesus is saying another, it is almost certainly because you are not understanding fully either one of them.
You want to see the whole Scripture as truth? Look simply at the life and ministry of Christ. Didn't he praise the faith of the Roman Centurion? Wasn't the Centurion a tool of the oppressor? Didn't Jesus berate Peter for his zeal against the soldier who had accompanied the Temple leaders to arrest Him in Gethsemene? Didn't He go willingly? Wasn't the manner of His sacrifice (planned and prophecied from the Beginning) at the hands of authority? Did He resist it? Who did He speak against--the state or the 'church' ? Was he 'really' executed for treason? Or did He lay down His own life because NO MAN can take it from Him?
I spent a little time as well trying to figure out Ray's innate 'politics'. The clearest statement I've read from him on his core belief is that he is an ambassador for the Kingdom of God--this world is NOT his home--and as an ambassador he ought not to be involving himself in the politics of this world.
On a side (and lighter) note: I came of age in the mid-70's. I think some of my anarcho-leaning friends from that period would argue that as soon as you identify as an 'anarchist' you become less of one. :D Marques is essentially right, I think. Don't stop and build an altar to what you think you know. There's a 'solution' to this apparent contradiction that is meant just for you...be very careful, however, that there is no YOU in there. It's not just organized religion (and politics) which is false and dangerous--unorganized, disorganized, and our own pet beliefs will bite us too.
Hang in there.
-
Definiton of anarchism from Free Dictionary website:
anarchism
noun
1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished.
2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists.
3. Rejection of all forms of coercive control and authority
4. A political theory advocating the elimination of governments and governmental restraint and the substitution of voluntary cooperation among individuals.
Well, I'd agree to all of the above definitions in blue---with the qualification that the word "rejection" in #3 not be interpreted to mean any sort of outward, or violent rejection...Passive rejection, yes.
What scriptures do you believe Jesus states and supports these definitions (particularly the ones in bold)?
1. You know the Lord is coming to set up His Kingdom or government, right? [I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom...2 Tim 4:1] and [The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever...Rev 11:15]
2. You know Jesus showed no resistance and/or terrorism when he was oppressed? [He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter...Isa 53:7] and [I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled...Mark 14:49]
3. You know that Jesus never rejected His Father's authority? [My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work...John 4:34] and [The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do...John 5:19]
4. You know that all the voluntary cooperation among individuals still results in wickedness and corruption? [O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always...Deut 5:29] and [And they (people of Babel) said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven (signifying pride, haughtiness, self-worship)...Gen 11:4]
Why, I believe all of the above scriptures support the definitions in blue-- which are the only legitimate forms of anarchy, IMO. Btw, the reference you give to the tower of Babel actually makes my point that the City-State is an evil organization and contrary to the ways and laws of God. Beginning in Genesis from Nimrod's first state, we see that this is the rejection of God's Lordship, in favor of the rulership of man (or 'self-rule' as our alleged democracy arrogantly declares)
Pinko, this may seem harsh, but one cannot bring the Lord down to where one is with their personal beliefs...we must repent and humble ourselves and the Lord will lift us up. This entire concept is you attempting to bring the Lord into agreement with your personal beliefs...this is a huge idol of the heart that we all have done in one form or the other.
Ah, but I once had the same idol of the heart of so many Christian statists... I was very much an archist. It took a lot of chastisement from the Lord, I think, to beat out of me the terrible godless, loveless beliefs of my former Baptistic-patriot-militia-type teachers and preachers. I am a pacifist. But I was not always a pacifist. I used to march lock-step with all the 'blessed are the war-makers' crowd...I most certainly did repent, and have been busily shedding all of those formerly held "personal beliefs", I can tell you.
You are even willing to disregard the very words of the apostles Peter and Paul to try and 'conform' Christ to your personal beliefs. You even stated that 'if something doesn't seem to fit, I have to question whether what I'm reading is true'...again, this is that idol of the heart. You are saying if the words of God do not fit with your beliefs, it must be questioned to whether or not it is true. With this line of thinking, (1) you will never humble yourself and question your own heart and intentions, just any of the word of God you believe contradicts your beliefs and (2) you set yourself in your temple (body) as your own god and all must be in agreement with this god.
No I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.. Did the doctrine of eternal damnation ever seem 'to fit' with the scriptures and with your personal understanding of biblical christianity? ..It did not for me, and yet I was 'forced' to accept it, as the scriptures (as they are translated into the english bibles) do seem to teach it---and certainly every church I'd ever been in and every preacher-teacher dogmatically taught it. But as we've all seen here, that was a most damnable false-teaching. I wasn't always certain of that.. I wasn't always certain Jesus wanted his followers to be pacifists and reject statism either.. But I am learning.
Pinko, the Lord is changing and conforming our mind to the mind of Christ [Rom 8:29, 12:2] and it is done through humility and being teachable. Attempting to make His Word 'fit' with our beliefs is not that humility or being teachable that is required.
Yes, He is changing us all.. And if I were not teachable, I wouldn't bother to be here. Case in point: I'd spent a good 10 years of my Christian life following the rabbit trails of the Young Earth Creationists, and earnestly believed their doctrine.. I've since been taught otherwise. ;) I did not expect Ray to convince me on that one. But I came at it with an open mind, and he did. ANd neither did I ever expect to believe I should "put up my sword", as Jesus commanded Peter to do, and yet now I see He was right, and my beliefs were so much pride-fed and testosterone-fueled idolatry. It's funny how some things one once reveled in, we now are sickened by.
-
Hi Pinko,
In all of the posts that you replied to you still have not shown where Jesus Christ was Crucified
for being a Traitor to Rome. Where is your proof in Scripture that your statement i highlited in
Red Bold is true.
Have you taken this up with Ray; and have you got an answer that is counter to or in agreement
with your already established and accepted anarchist belief. Are we supposed to each go our own
way with our relative truths; and forget the (Spiritual Words) which are Life.
Contradictions are usually percieved by one's perspective relative to another in place and time.
Have you read Ray's paper and understood it:
Was Christ Made Sin: http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.msg53823.html#msg53823
george. :)
I've been reading here for about 8 or 10 months I suppose...Have read everything Ray has writ and listened to all the bible teachings on audio. And I am grateful for all he's shared with us. Most of which, I believed inside already, only couldn't reconcile it with scripture as I'd been dutifully indoctrinated during my life in 'Christendom'... But now I know better.
One area of thought I've not seen much from Ray, however is his views on the state and politics in general. I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is).. And I've recently seen what could be considered a "contradiction" in the NT teachings of Paul and Peter vs. those of Jesus. But, I know, 'the scriptures do not contradict'...which is why I'm asking.
Jesus had nothing but utter disdain for the 'governing authorities' of his day..Matter of fact, he was actually executed for the crime of treason to Rome.. Remember he was brought before Pilate with the accusation that "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Lk 23:1-2) None of which were denied...
How then can Jesus and Paul both be right?
-
You guys are coming at me from all directions and I can’t make a coherent point, I guess. Kat and others keep bringing up Romans 13 and rehashing “render unto Caesar”, as if that counters my opinion or somehow satisfies my initial question in this thread… But that IS my question.
Kat>> Satan is the ruler of this world only under God's sovereign.
Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
The answer Christ gave Satan did not go over his statement point by point, but it clearly shows that Christ certainly did not go along with Satan's statement to Him.
How did Christ “not go along” with Satan’s claim? I just don't see that at all. Of course all that is, is ultimately under God, but ought we to “resist evil” (as followers of Christ) and “resist not the evildoer” (pacifism) , or is that backwards? Btw, some translations actually do invert those doctrines! ..And, do we “wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.”?
Are the governments of this world yet under the god of this world, or has he been formerly cast out? (What did Jesus say?) Does Christ NOW rule this world with a rod of iron, or is that yet future? Or, if the world’s kingdoms are generally anti-christ, then is Christ doing evil that good may come?
Yes, indeed, the beast is within us.. But the BORG is one mind…One Beast, made up of the many. Resitence is futile, right? God has even intended for His Elect to be part of the Collective Hive, no? Human governments, my friends, are made up of individual people. And the evil they do is always done by the individual. Of course, they intend to escape the consequences of their actions by hearkening to the 'collective good'..they always believe their sin is washed away by the tide of collective accountability (meaning no one is responsible for anything).
I get the impression that some here believe it was not a sin for the pilot of the Enola Gay to push the button on the bomb doors and unleash a hellish destruction on so many souls, because he was merely "rendering unto Caesar" and "submitting to the powers that be"... doing evil in order that good may come…
Ray has said this: “Most laws of men are for the benefit of the people. However, some laws and leaders are not carrying out righteous government. When there is a conflict between God's laws and men's laws, "We ought to obey GOD RATHER THAN MEN" (Acts 5:29).
OK, so I agree.. in principle. But I take issue with his first statement...that 'most laws are for the benefit of the people'---THAT remains to be proven, but certainly appears patently false on it's face.. In fact, the whole idea of “man’s laws” should be anathema to followers of Christ. How shall man improve on God’s laws? Do we really need more??
Moreover, it can be cogently argued that there is always conflict between man’s laws and God’s laws.. Maybe it’s even axiomatic.
-
Hi Pinko,
In all of the posts that you replied to you still have not shown where Jesus Christ was Crucified
for being a Traitor to Rome. Where is your proof in Scripture that your statement i highlited in
Red Bold is true.
The statement you highlighted, George, was scripture! Jesus was accused, as is recorded by Luke, of "perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." .. I could go on with adding many scriptures which would conform to my thoughts here, but where is your scriptural proof to counter this charge made by the Jews in Luke's account? Were these expressly denied by Christ? No! He DID claim to be the Messiah in more than a few places in the gospels... He DID confirm to Pilate that You say I am a King (and so he was--yet his kingdom was not of this world)... The only dispute you have is with the third statement, that he was "forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor". I happen to think he was.. But that was only one of three seditious charges, two of which you would not dispute.
As I said before, I recognize what Pilate is recorded as saying as well (in his bogus "washing of the hands"), it's just that I don't buy it.. And I don't think the conclusions commonly drawn from this are correct. He was in fact executed by Rome, no? How or why did Pilate knowingly execute an innocent man? To 'appease the Jews?' He didn't give a spit about the Jews!
Have you taken this up with Ray; and have you got an answer that is counter to or in agreement
with your already established and accepted anarchist belief. Are we supposed to each go our own
way with our relative truths; and forget the (Spiritual Words) which are Life.
I was not aware Ray had a contrary opnion, George. As I said, I haven't found much of anything on this subject taught by Ray. If my being an anarchist (in the biblical sense) is counter to Ray's teachings, he will forgive me as he has nowhere stated this... Nor do I think we are "supposed to each go our own way with our relative truths".. Of course THAT is why I am asking these things! To determine what, if any, current of opinion is in here regarding these matters. I have searched these things out and continue to search them out. Anyone else searching, or does everyone merely repeat what they've heard umpteen thousand times on TBN... To wit, "render unto Ceasar and obey the powers that be". It's nonsense. I'm saying it's nonsense, and contrary to the teachings of Christ.
Have you read Ray's paper and understood it:
Was Christ Made Sin: http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,6719.msg53823.html#msg53823
george. :)
Yes, I've read it. Is there anything relevant to this topic--specifically--that should cause me to re-read it? If so, I will.
Peace.
-
I was not aware Ray had a contrary opnion, George. As I said, I haven't found much of anything on this subject taught by Ray.
And there we have it folks. This is the reason for the rules we have in place.
This forum is primarily a place for people of a like mind to fellowship, and secondarily to discuss and question what they learn on bible-truths.com.
Also more explanation of the rules here
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,3614.0.html
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4558.0.html
When we start discussing things not taught by Ray we are easily tossed one way and another. The moderators do not care what any member here believes and where they are led, we've said to continue your learning on topics Ray does not teach on, but please do not bring them here. We gotten alot of grief from some members in the past because of this, but we are not the same as all of the other christian based forums out there and we say this up front. I've belonged to other forums and read some, I see confusion, strife, and dead forums littered across the landscape. I admit we try and keep this forum single-minded, there are thousands of other forums that will allow all kinds of teachings and questions, if you can learn there then I wish everyone the best.
This is not a slam against you Pinko, but something that needs to be remembered by all the members who agreed to the forum rules and are members here. I am not saying that any views or teachings that any members have is wrong, you may well be right and you should pursue them. It's just not the purpose of the forum to discuss them here. We should have enough to agree on that it wouldn't be a problem.
I'm going to let this topic go on before locking it, I hope everyone can try and understand what I mean. I will give everybody fair warning, if I see a post that says something like "I've got a question, Ray does not talk about this and was wondering...." I will delete it :) and hope the other moderators will also.
Blessings
Craig
-
Okay Pinko here is one to read
Hello Ray,
I have emailed you before, so this would be my second. I am just going to write about something I have been thinking about, see what you think.
By God's grace and mercy, the Lord chose me to be a part of his Kingdom about 3 years ago. I certainly do not deserve such a honor, and still do things that in my mind would disqualify me from being part of anything of such magnitude.
After becoming a member by his election, not mine, I started to study his word to understand who my master is and who my Father in heaven is. I found, quite quickly, that the world is full of radio, television and Sunday pastors, who love to tell you about God, and what his will is and what is acceptable behavior for a Christian.
One behavior/activity that I find unbelievable that ministries endorse, is the insertion of God's chosen, into the world's military system. I know many pastors on the radio & on the television who say it is quite acceptable, in fact your duty to serve in the military. I believe this, along with many other doctrines, to be unharmonious with Christ's mission for us.
Fact: I am a citizen of the United States. By the grace of God, I born here. I had no choice in where I was born, just as I had no choice whether I would be a sinner or not. My natural birth occurred in December, year of our Lord 1968. My second birth, of the Spirit, occurred in the year of our Lord 2000. With the birth by God's spirit (God is Spirit), I am now a citizen of God's Kingdom. I am now called to serve his Kingdom, not man's. I am to follow the laws of the land, except if the laws go against our Father's will.
When Jesus was in Israel, redeeming and teaching the lost, he did not instruct his apostles to rise-up and fight Rome or Herod. Jesus had very clear instructions for his followers contained in Matthew chapter 5 and also 1Timothy chapter 2, along with other places in his word.
I can't find anywhere in Christ's teachings that we as citizens of our Father's Kingdom, made available to us through the Lord Jesus Christ, that we should pick-up arms and kill our enemies. We are supposed to be living epistles, to shine forth as sons of the Kingdom, that is eternal and ruled by our Lord Jesus at the right hand of our Father.
Imagine this, you are born from above, because of urging from "good" Christian doctrine at the pulpit of traditional Christendom, you decide to enlist in the military to fight the evil enemies of America. Your pastor tells you this is a honorable thing to do, and is good in the sight of the Lord. You eventually go to war, and you kill a man. You feel guilty, so you seek out the man's family and find his son. You explain to him that you killed his dad, that you are sorry, but would like to share the love of Christ with him because you are a Christian. Your witness is corrupted, so corrupted that even a "evil" Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, or whatever could see through it.
Many say we should fight for this country, because it is a Christian country and always has been. I used to believe this kind of reasoning, but now it just saddens me. This country was born in blood, just as natural man is. There was nothing spiritual about the birth of this nation. If our leaders at that time were Christians, what part of Christ's teaching were they following when they were fighting Native Americans, the French or the British? People always refer back to the Old Testament when I get on this subject about war. Problem is, we are not Israel, we do not have a government by God, and God does not deliver our enemies to us, we fight them. Israel was a theocracy, not a republic. Israel was delivered by God through these wars. There is no linearity between ancient Israel and America.
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.
The "Founding Fathers" of this country were very human, imperfect and were not walking, talking or doing what members, by election of God's Kingdom, should be doing, according to God's word.
For goodness sake, evil old England abolished slavery before we did! Do Christian countries allow pornography, abortion, legalized prostitution (Nevada)? In reality this country is the BEST secular country in the world. This is not a Christian nation, this is not a theocracy. I know, I know, "One Nation Under God", You can tell what manner of tree, by the fruit it bears.
As Christians, we can't expect secular, pagan, whatever to act like Christians. It's hard enough to find people who say that they are Christians, who also walk according to the light of the Lord's Truth. I by no means walked in light before Christ chose me for the Kingdom. I still continue to struggle with issues of darkness and my sinful ways, but Christ is my strength, he paid the price for me and you and for all mankind! As much as I have a choice in this matter, I choose light not darkness. If desire to kill your enemies, you are in darkness.
Any pastor that tells a member of his flock to pick-up arms and fight, should go with that person to war (physically), set a example like the apostles did, like Jesus did. But of course, Jesus nor the Apostles killed their enemies, did they.
This is what I understand to be true. You don't have to believe it, or me, but believe in God's word, please! I think that I am like minded with you Larry, which is good. Peace be with you and I hope more and more Biblical Christians are called out of the system by our Lord. Take it easy.
Kelly
[Ray Replies]
You are right on, Kelly!
Ray
beloved
-
Hi Pinko,
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.
What I meant by, Christ did not go along with that statement Satan made, is that Satan may be the ruler of this world, but he could not circumvents God's plan for Him and Christ knew it. Christ had made it clear why He had come into the world.
John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me
John 4:34 Jesus said to them, "My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.
Mat 20:28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
John 10:17 "Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
v. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."
Now I know that these temptations of Christ came before Christ even spoke the above Scriptures. But we know it was God will for him to speak them and fulfil them, because it happened. I think Christ saw right through Satan's statement to Him.
Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve."
Christ said to Satan "Get behind Me," because He know who He was dealing with.
John 8:44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.
Didn't Satan deceive Eve with a lie, was He trying to do the same thing with Christ?
mercy, peace and love
Kat
-
I was not aware Ray had a contrary opnion, George. As I said, I haven't found much of anything on this subject taught by Ray.
And there we have it folks. This is the reason for the rules we have in place.
This forum is primarily a place for people of a like mind to fellowship, and secondarily to discuss and question what they learn on bible-truths.com.
Blessings
Craig
Hi Craig-- well since Beloved posted a letter to Ray and Ray agreed with it, I guess we can say Ray espouses a teaching on this subject... So it's OK to talk about it?
Good! Because I totally agree with the letter writer and Ray on the matter.
To everyone else, I say, you're either with us or with the terrorists! Choose!
But seriously, Craig, I was only trying to see IF there were like minds with which to fellowship, just as you said. And now that I also know this is something covered on Bible Truths, well I suppose we're cool. Right?
But just let me know if we're not. I've been shut up--and shut down--before. I don't mind it. However it was NOT my intention to cause any dissent and hope I have not.
Peace.
-
Beloved: Like I just told Craig-- I happen to agree with that email, and therefore with Ray.. Hope that's OK.
Kat: 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?
Just asking.
Peace.
-
Pinko,
There is no problem, so no worries :). Just when you made the statement about not being covered much, it left an opportunity to remind members of the rules of the forum. Lately we've seemed to forget them.
Craig
-
Pinko, I'm somewhat confused:
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.
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. Or were you explaining some other point? I know how it is to be misunderstood so I'm just trying to follow.
Marques
-
This thread served a very worthwhile cause and the email Beloved posted was priceless.
Maybe this thread will help some to see that Paul does not contradict Jesus and his teachings.
I had a friend that thought Paul was satan's messenger, so needless to say my friends friendship was broken at least for now.
-
Pinko,
I am; and i believe most members here are in agreement with Ray on the Subject. My question
is still what crime was Jesus Christ Guilty of that caused Him to be crucified. There is no Scripture
that i have read stating this. None of the Scriptures quoted by you prove any such thing. Yes, He
was accused of many crimes by His accusers, when has an accusation ever been a conviction of
or proof guilt or innocence.
How can One without Spot or Blemish be blemished. Did Jesus Christ Die for his crime or for Our Sins.
Luke 23:4:
Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man.
Luke 23:14:
Said to them, You have brought this man to me, as one that perverts the people: and, behold, I, having
examined him before you, have found no fault in this man touching those things whereof you accuse him:
John 18:38:
Pilate said to him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to
them, I find in him no fault at all.
John 19:4:
Pilate therefore went forth again, and said to them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that you may know
that I find no fault in him.
John 19:6:
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him.
Pilate said to them, Take you him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
Now please show some Scripture that contradicts the verses above. Remember an accusation is not
a finding of guilt or innocence. But When God Has a Plan; It Always Works, according to the Scriptures.
george. :)
-
Pinko I think people are finding it hard to answer your questions about contradictions when there are so many contradictions in your questions.
You say things like
Now I know much of the NT teachings seem to contradict this teaching--in spirit--if not in letter, but one incident in particular is recorded in 3 of the Gospels---namely Jesus' temptation by Satan, wherein he was offered "all the kingdoms of the world. And the devil said to him, 'To you I will give their glory and all this authority, for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please. If you then will worship me, it will all be yours[/b].'"
Jesus did not dispute this claim of Satan that all earthly (governmental) authority--all states--were rightfully the Devil's; were given to him; and therefore flowed from him to all the kings of the earth.
Well here are the three (it is way too complex to explain here but the different gospel versions are spiritually significant)
(Mar 1:12) And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
(Mar 1:13) And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
(Mat 4:8) Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
(Mat 4:9) And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
Only Luke makes this statement you are claiming to be a contradiction.
(Luk 4:5) And the Devil having brought him up to an high mountain, shewed to him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time,
(Luk 4:6) And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.
(Luk 4:7) If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.
Okay we can see your point Satan was given power but what was he given
(Gen 3:14) Then said Yahweh God unto the serpent-Because thou hast done this, Accursed, art thou above every tame-beast, and above every wild-beast of the field,-on thy belly, shall thou go, and dust, shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.
(Gen 3:19) In the sweat of thy face, shalt thou eat bread, until thou return to the ground, because therefrom, wast thou taken,-For, dust, thou art, And, unto dust, shalt thou return.
Satan was given dominion over the carnal aspect of man and their desires , If they want to be be kings or dictators, artists or porno stars
This is shown in Job also..Job too submitted he physical aspects even though he did not exactly understand why
We are told
1Jn 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
The three things that Eve fell for but that Jesus resisted in the temptation in the wilderness
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
Gal 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh.
There is no spiritual contradiction or even contradiction in the letter, the things in print said are 'apparent contradicitions' to thos who cannot see the spiritual,
then you asked
How then does this passage not undeniably refute Paul's (and Peter's) claim that 'all government authority comes from God.'...and that we should even "honor the emperor" (and thus his 'authority')?
Jesus had nothing but utter disdain for the 'governing authorities' of his day..Matter of fact, he was actually executed for the crime of treason to Rome.. Remember he was brought before Pilate with the accusation that "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Lk 23:1-2) None of which were denied... color](Pinko that is Jesus performing an act of submission for the Father)
What disdain are you speaking of ?
(Luk 23:34) Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Pilot was a carnal...a coward, self centered and power hungry, he knew what they were up to and gave in to them...Jesus submitted
(Joh 19:12) And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
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)
When on trial Jesus confirms this
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My Kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
(Joh 19:11) Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. Jesus himself submitted to being crucified in obedience to His father.
Did you ever consider that after the ressurection
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Paul and Peter are all referring to the new rules.....
1Jn 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
In the physical we are under all authroities of the physical world but in the spiritual we are dying to self....we are slaves.and servants .... in the kingdom of God children awaiting to become sons and heirs
Here is more of Ray on the subject
One
God will judge you for teaching His people false doctrines. How could make such a statement about tithing? Did you receive a revelation from God apart from the bible. Shame on you, the word of God never change .Tithing is act of obedient to God. The Lord provides us with everything we have, what's wrong of obeying His word. Is tithing is wrong, everything else in the word of God is wrong. Jesus will tells you depart from me workers of iniquity I never knew you. No way you're going to enter the kingdom of God, unless you repent from your false teaching. Stop leading God's people astray. The Lord Jesus says to render to Cesar what belong's to him and render to God what's belong to God. You're such a deceiver!
Lee!
As I have often said: "Hell has no fury like a Christian just shown the truth." Didn't Jesus say to "Render unto Caesar the things (the coins with his image on them) WHICH ARE CAESARS?"
We are to render unto God the things (NOT CAESAR'S MONEY!!) which ARE God's. How could anyone be so spiritually ignorant and then boast about it and demean and threaten those who teach the truth. Imagine trying to make that Scripture say that Believers should give unto GOD, the things that belong to CAESAR?! The coins with Caesar's image belong to Caesar. God doesn't want Caesar's filthy money! When did Jesus ever "render CAESAR'S MONEY unto His Father?" Give me a break.
Unbelievable, the way Christians pervert the Scriptures and despise the Word of God.
Ray
Two
Dear Mr. Smith,
You asked in your writing about tithing if anyone could mention a scripture where Jesus mentioned tithing.
He was asked about giving money to Caesar. He replied give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's. There is no question that he was talking about money.
I do tithe and I do so cheerfully. Not to be blessed financially in return, but out of the pure joy of giving.
You should try it.
In Christ,
Jean Kern
Dear Jean: Thank you for that little psychological put-down. You are right about one thing, however, Jesus was definitely talking about MONEY! Too bad that you and the hundreds of thousands of clergymen and seminary professors have not a clue as to what this episode is all about.
Now then, the reason He was talking about money is because these lying, two-faced religious hypocrites of His day, just like those in our day did not like the teachings of Jesus, and so they tried to trap Him and get Him to say something bad against the Roman government. They asked:
"Tell us therefore, What do you think? It is lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? Show Me the tribute money [excuse me, did Jesus say 'show me the TITHE money?']. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He said unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then said He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which ARE Caesar's and unto God the things that ARE God's."
Now then, Why didn't Jesus just answer them? Why didn't He say, "Yes, you should pay tribute to Caesar?"
Why did He ask for a coin, and not just any coin, but one that had Caesar's image on it? Because that image of Caesar on the coin showed ownership. Who does the money in the Roman empire belong to? Why Caesar, of course. And so Jesus said in effect, "Yes, it is Caesar's image, therefore it belongs to Caesar." Therefore render unto Caesar the things [the money] which ARE Caesar's. The coin, THE MONEY that Jesus was showing them, that MONEY, that filthy lucre, belongs to Caesar, NOT GOD. God does not want the filthy lucre of this world's evil governments. We are to render unto God the things that ARE God's, NOT MONEY. Jesus profoundly showed that the money belongs to Caesar, so give Caesar his tax money. But God does not tax His people under the New Covenant. How can anyone study the Scriptures and be so blind to this simple truth and analogy of our Lord? Unbelievable!
God be with you,
Ray
Three
Hello Ray,
I really enjoy your articles, especially those on the subject of Hell. I have two questions:
1. Should "True Christians be involved in Politics and vote ?
2. When "Searching the deepthings of God", is using one's analytical skills and logic a stumbling block, or a god-given help ?
Thanks for your time.
Willie
Dear Willie:
No, a true follower of Jesus cannot be involved in politics. Jesus certainly did not take part in any such worldly activities.
As the Scriptures can hold up to analysis and logic, there is nothing wrong in using analysis and logic in studying and/or teaching the Scriptures.
God be with you,
Ray
Rom 10:3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
beloved
-
Hi Pinko,
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?
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
-
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.
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?
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.
Well, was Peter ever wrong about anything? ;) (I speak as a fool).
-
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.
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)
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.
-
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::
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.
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.
So was/is Jesus an "anarchist" ?
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.
Let us simplify this thread and your search for this knowledge.
Is there a contradiction or is there not a contradiction ?
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.
-
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.
-
I'm an anarchist, as I believe Jesus was (and is)..
Actually it was Barabbas who was the anarchist/terrorist.
Jesus had nothing but utter disdain for the 'governing authorities' of his day..Matter of fact, he was actually executed for the crime of treason to Rome.. Remember he was brought before Pilate with the accusation that "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." (Lk 23:1-2) None of which were denied...
Mark 15
6Now at that feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired.
7And there was one named Barabbas, which lay bound with them that had made *insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the *insurrection.
8And the multitude crying aloud began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto them.
9But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?
10For he knew that the chief priests had delivered him for envy.
11But the chief priests moved the people, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.
12And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?
13And they cried out again, Crucify him.
14Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
15And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.
*insurrection
G4714
στάσις
stasis
stas'-is
From the base of G2476; a standing (properly the act), that is, (by analogy) position (existence); by implication a popular uprising; figuratively controversy: - dissension, insurrection, X standing, uproar.
Peace,
Joe
-
Well, Dave, you can rest easy..I'm no revolutionist! I'm saying I have no politics...I'm anti-political. I'm anti-man-rule. I'm pro-God-rule. I do not make distinctions between states, governments and rulers; I consider them all unnecessary for society to function. I understand that God has allowed, created evil, in this time, in this world for a purpose.. and for a good purpose (to humble us thereby). But He teaches us with it by learning to resist it.
So we should resist all appearances of evil. So many Christians do not believe this, but rather that they should "submit themselves to it" ---as if to God. These people are misguided.
Christ in effect said, these kingdoms of man are irrelevant. My kingdom shall overcome all. My authority shall usurp all. He cared not about reforming the Roman government or for bringing their political structure in line with his teachings... He said it was all passing away. And that his followers have a better City, a better Country, and they have their citizenship there NOW. Therefore are we aliens, pilgrims and transients here. We have no allegiance to our self-appointed rulers and their self-possessed kingdoms and we owe them no tribute.. All belongs to God, with nothing left to render unto anyone else.
People who have this statist bent and who also believe themselves to be followers of Christ suffer from their cognitive dissonance in ways they do not even understand.. But when carried out to it's logical conclusion, believe me, their philosophy breaks down---sometimes rapidly and catastrophically. Those Christians living in Germany between the Wars know what I am talking about.
We cannot serve two masters. And we cannot be masters. This is the message of Jesus Christ. And this is why I am an anarchist.
Peace.
-
Joe,
I'm not an insurrectionist. I realize Barabbas was. I know the difference.
If it is sedition to obey God rather than man, then perhaps I am guilty of being a seditionist. If so, I am in good company. :)
-
;D ;D ;D Pinko ;D ;D ;D
Drop the anachrist ptherwise you have to assume and carry all of the baggage of that movement
become a protochrist ...one who follows Jesus
You cannot be against...anything or anyone....they are all from God
Agape love is putting everything in your being into submission to the Father, ...even the "idea of being a anachist". REST in God
Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
beloved
-
And I think we've beat this horse enough now. :)
Craig
-
Hi Pinko,
You stated; "Jesus Christ in effect said, these kingdoms of man are irrelevant."
Do you have any scriptural witnesses to this observation? These worldly kingdoms are indeed temporary, but they do serve a purpose in God's plan.
Peter explains this apparent dilemma very effectively, we endure this worldly system for the Lord's sake, for His glory.
1Peter 2
11Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;
12Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.
13Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
14Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
15For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
16As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
17Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.
20For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.
21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
24Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
25For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
Peace,
Joe
-
Beloved made my point and much shorter too.
I can't believe you when you say you have 'no politics' or are 'anti-political' as you continue to define yourself in Political terms. Sorry...that doesn't fly.
That's between you and God, however. There's at least a little of that kind of re-defined ""anarchy"" in most of us, I am guessing. What I have to totally reject is your definition of Jesus Christ in political terms. Whether you mean to or not, that is the language of ideology and pays no respect to a God who tells US who he is, and gives us our names too.
I personaly think you are missing the big picture. Peter and Paul were instructing the people on how to live in the circumstances in which they found themselves--mostly under occupation, in a culture rife with slavery, and under threat of arrest and execution for failing to follow the state religion. Makes me laugh to think anybody believes we've got it worse.
All of us come to truth from where we were by the Grace of God. All of us will continue in Truth from where we are. But it serves no purpose to insist that others follow our 'logic' to a determined end. You chose the terms at the very least. For anybody to get on your logical path would require a reasonable understanding of the basics and history of Anarchism (you do know there is more than ONE strain, do you not?) as it has congealed in your mind. I have no desire to get off my trail to do that. I'm a monarchist. ;D
I have to admit, this is the first time I've had 'this discussion' since receiving the Gospel. Where is Reg when you need him?
-
I think Craig has it right... This discussion usually does turn into a dead horse and I, too, tire of beating it.
I also think most of us in this discussion are more in agreement than not. Strange as that is. It's not the philosophy of anarchism that matters most to me..I realy don't care how others define it, or define themselves by their opinion of its adherents. What matters to me is the practical aspect of the idea...
"How then should we live." I think I understand that our world is not the world of Peter and Paul. We are far removed from that. But in some ways, we are in a more dangerous place.. We in the West are quite fortunate right now...certainly that has not always been the case, and it could change in a moment. But what you believe in your heart, at some point must connect with your feet---where the leather hits the road, so to speak.
Joe quotes 1Peter2... I've read it. I do not claim to fully understand it. I even leave open the possibility that its instruction was temporal--or even Peter's error.. But nevertheless, however we interpret that passage, how do we live it?
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Great notion. Joe, what I'm asking is how would you handle being a slave chained in a basement room? Me personally, I'd try to escape. Does this violate the teachings of Christ? Is it contrary to Peter's teachings here? ..Peter talks the talk, but when offered the chance to break out of prison by the angel in the 12th chapter of Acts, he sure did bug out quick! Perhaps he should have been more "subject" to his authorities.. Did Peter act consistently with his own teachings?
Beloved made my point and much shorter too.
I can't believe you when you say you have 'no politics' or are 'anti-political' as you continue to define yourself in Political terms. Sorry...that doesn't fly.
Dave, here is the etymology of the word "politics":
(1529), "science of government," from politic (adj.), modeled on Aristotle's ta politika "affairs of state," the name of his book on governing and governments, which was in Eng. 1450 as "Polettiques."
"Politicks is the science of good sense, applied to public affairs, and, as those are forever changing, what is wisdom to-day would be folly and perhaps, ruin to-morrow. Politicks is not a science so properly as a business. It cannot have fixed principles, from which a wise man would never swerve, unless the inconstancy of men's view of interest and the capriciousness of the tempers could be fixed." [Fisher Ames (1758–1808)]
Meaning "a person's political allegiances or opinions" is from 1769. Political animal transl. Gk. politikon zoon (Aristotle, Politics, I.ii.9) "an animal intended to live in a city; a social animal."
I reject that ideology, Dave. I have no part in it. The affairs of the state are not my affairs.. I have no political allegiances.. I do not believe man is an animal intended to live in a city... Nay, QUITE the CONTRARY.. You don't have to buy it; it don't have to fly for you...but it works for me. It feels to me to be the only consistent opinion to have regarding the state qua the teachings of Jesus.
All of us come to truth from where we were by the Grace of God. All of us will continue in Truth from where we are. But it serves no purpose to insist that others follow our 'logic' to a determined end. You chose the terms at the very least. For anybody to get on your logical path would require a reasonable understanding of the basics and history of Anarchism (you do know there is more than ONE strain, do you not?) as it has congealed in your mind. I have no desire to get off my trail to do that. I'm a monarchist. ;D
That's cool man. I'm not trying to make anyone an anarchist! But your beliefs too may one day be tested. Be patient. Stay on your trail.. and know that all roads eventually lead to Rome. ;)
I'm glad we could have 'this discussion'. I'm sure the Lord in his wisdom had good reason for causing it!
-
Joe quotes 1Peter2... I've read it. I do not claim to fully understand it. I even leave open the possibility that its instruction was temporal--or even Peter's error.. But nevertheless, however we interpret that passage, how do we live it?
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
Great notion. Joe, what I'm asking is how would you handle being a slave chained in a basement room? Me personally, I'd try to escape. Does this violate the teachings of Christ? Is it contrary to Peter's teachings here? ..Peter talks the talk, but when offered the chance to break out of prison by the angel in the 12th chapter of Acts, he sure did bug out quick! Perhaps he should have been more "subject" to his authorities.. Did Peter act consistently with his own teachings?
Hi Pinko,
I can appreciate the different thoughts and scenarios we all can come up with from time to time, wondering or imagining what we would do in certain situations. As far as being a slave chained in a basement is concerned part of the equation would have to include how did I find myself in that position? Did I break rules or a confidence, was I not working hard enough? What got me in this unenviable situation?
If it was out of pure meanness and my master was just delusional and insane an escape would certainly be my goal, but why else would someone chain a slave in a basement unless they were a danger or unreliable or the master was a madman, it doesn't seem much work could be accomplished, what good is a slave that cannot work?
Peter left the prison because it was obvious that was the Lord's will. Neither Peter nor Paul attempted to run away when martyrdom stared them in the face.
Getting back to my thoughts on "what if" exercises, I will quote Jesus and James, this really does put things in perspective and give one peace.
Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (today is trouble enough!)
Jam 4:14 Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor, that appeareth for a little time and then vanisheth away.