Leaderboard

As the OP Im ok with the topic derailing. It has been and continues to be an interesting discussion.

I always liked, "keep your mouth closed and let everyone wonder if your a fool, or open your mouth and prove it."

To Show Jesus And To Love The Beloved And To Share His Mercy And Grace And To Enjoy The Fellowship Found At Worthy With Every Post For It's Not Some Right I've Earned But A Gift Paid For By The Precious Blood Of The Lamb And I Am Blessed

Salty, please try to find this theory in ANY commentary written at any time. lI suspect it is a theory held only by YOU. 18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. 19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt. 20 And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: 21 Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. This is very simply language, and the words make perfect sense in their literal sense. Trying to make they say something different is nonsense. This is very clearly PHYSICAL death. Notice that it is the REST of the people that did not repent. Those that died could not repent, for they were DEAD. LAMAD That's just like Hal Lindsey's interpretation in his books (which are not God's Word by the way), he's the one that made that interpretation the most famous in support of the Pre-trib rapture, even though others before him had it too. If you read the writings of the early Church fathers of the 1st and 2nd centuries, you'll discover how they were given to understand much Bible prophecy for the end of this world which many commentators have strayed away from (because of men's doctrines that crept in later). So lot of commentators of later eras must be taken with a grain of salt. Rev.9 18 By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths. 19 For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt. It is strange how you would just pass over... those phrases in red while only selecting that in black bold. So if that Scripture is being literal, tell me, just HOW do those locusts kill by what is issued out of their MOUTHS? For the so called early church fathers, we know, even from scripture that some were leaving the sound teachings of the apostles while the apostles were still alive. The so-called early church fathers were in the shift from a Jewish based church to a Gentile based church and theyhad a lot of issues, including a leaning towards anti-semitism which grew greater. Very early on, accusing the Jewish people of Deicide and claiming 'replacement theology/supersession', the church had replaced Israel. The Epistle of Barnabus was the first to accuse the Jews of Deicide. Justin Martyr accused the Jews of killing Christ, and by 150 ce, Replacement Theology was being embraced. Origen taught that the Jews had permanently forfeited all their covenants, which now belonged to the church (at least the blessings belonged to the church).. Tertullian said that divine judgement was upon Israel. By the time of 341, church councils prohibited Christians from celebrating the Sabbath, festivals, and eating with the Jewish people with a focus of extracting anything to do with the Jewish people from any Church practices. So, in my opinion, basing an end times theology on the teachings of the church fathers is highly precarious as these men for the most part, disliked to hated the Jews so would most likely teach that the Jews had lost all Gods promises.

Yes And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9 (NASB) Yes, I Think You Can And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Genesis 2:18 ~ Personally, and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.” Mark 10:12 (NASB) I Believe Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 1 Corinthians 7:15 God Is The Number One Romantic Both In And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. Genesis 2:21-22 And Out Of This Universe And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads. Revelation 22:3-4

As your wife committed adultery, even the naysayers against divorce would agree you can remarry. In fact many would state adultery is THE reason for being allowed to divorce and remarry. The Bible also states that if the unbeliever wishes to leave...let them...Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. I Cor 7:15 However, I have no problem with you wanting her to stay...I can understand that. That's the black and white answer...and this is not hypothetical for many here..

One question..... would you stand by and let someone rape and kill your wife and/or kids? Would you even stand quietly and let someone beat you and take your life? Well, I guess that's two questions related. I hope this doesn't come across as a cop-out, but I Pray that I would follow the leading of God to the best of my ability. That's all I know to say. My now Ex-wife was raped ( when we were still married ), I was not there when it happened. At the time I was not saved. In fact I was a satanist at the time. My first response was to kill them if I ever meet them or come across them. I just can't imagine that now that I'm saved and following Jesus the reaction I should have should be the same as when I was a satanist. But that is after the incident. Other one is talking about stopping someone from attacking your wife and kids, Could you do that? All I know to say is I pray I would follow the leading of God to the best of ability and not act out in the flesh which has always got me in trouble. maybe restrain and detain them, but something non violent.

I will not resist an officer or the military in the performance of their duty. But cops are not owed respect, respect is earned, not freely given away. P.S. Your verses are Romans 13:1-7 not Romans 3:1-7

One question..... would you stand by and let someone rape and kill your wife and/or kids? Would you even stand quietly and let someone beat you and take your life? Well, I guess that's two questions related. I hope this doesn't come across as a cop-out, but I Pray that I would follow the leading of God to the best of my ability. That's all I know to say. My now Ex-wife was raped ( when we were still married ), I was not there when it happened. At the time I was not saved. In fact I was a satanist at the time. My first response was to kill them if I ever meet them or come across them. I just can't imagine that now that I'm saved and following Jesus the reaction I should have should be the same as when I was a satanist.

I condensed what you said, but I promise I read it. This may surprise you but I'm not a total pacifist. I believe it is wrong to respond to violence with more violence, unless you are being led by God. There is a difference between acting in the flesh and acting in the spirit. We don't always know the difference in the heat of the moment. An example of a divinely inspired aggressive act would be the Arab-Israel war of 1948 and the 6 day war in 1967. I believe both were divinely inspired and the will of God for the purpose of bring Israel home and fulfilling scripture. It's not my place to determine if God has spoken something to another or not. Jesus didn't teach violence or war, but love and peace. To say that Jesus taught to retaliate when struck, hurt or wronged is just not the gospel I read. But we are told to obey and that if we love him we will obey all that he commands us to do. He has told Israel to go to war many times. My point being if we are responding to violence against us by lashing out in the flesh with more violence then we are wrong. However, if we are responding to violence against us by taking it to God and /or following the leading of the Holy Spirit in the moment then we are in line with scripture. But Jesus nor the bible teach that we are to respond to violence with more violence.

While we are under the New Covenant, the New Covenant and the New Testament are not entirely equal. The book of Matthew is primarily written to the Jewish people who were under the Mosaic Covenant. So much of Matthew is discussing an interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant. The Jewish people expected the Messiah would expound on scriptures and the law. Until Jesus death and resurrection, the New Covenant was not in force, and Jesus had to be obedient to the laws of the Mosaic covenant, born a Jew, or He would have been a sinner, as He was born under the Mosaic covenant. Matthew 5:38-39 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also Jesus is expounding on the Mosaic law and the understanding and interpretation as well as the application of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law goes into fine detail about various things, such as a person who damaged or hurt a person. If a person damaged or hurt and animal etc. The penalty for this kind of damage or injury must be of equal weight. If a person kills your ox, the penalty must be in equal proportion. And eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If a person killed your ox, then equal proportion would be paying for the value of the ox, or replacing the ox. If you put an eye out of the ox, that would devalue the ox, so a reasonable reparation must be paid. This is entire discussion is in reaction to crimes and judges decisions in court cases. The Mosaic covenant included how to appoint judges and taking cases to the judges, what is sufficient evidence etc. There are sections of the law which allow for a family appointed avenger in very narrow circumstances but, generally speaking, the Mosaic law did not allow for revenge. Even to appoint an avenger required the judges to determine that the violation of a particular law allowed for the avenger, and that avenger had limitations according to the law. Turning the other cheek is saying, do not seek personal vengence, but allow the courts to judge the matter. The New Covenant is of course different then the Mosaic covenant, as it does not allow or include the appointment of judges for a court system within Christianity. A Christian is not to sue another Christian in civil court if they accidently damage our ox. Ideally, we should be able to work it out, and if not, other Christians are to judge the matter, and not secular courts. But, we are to be obedient to the secular laws of the land. If a person steals, that is against the law. If a person murders, that is against the law. These are matters for government law and the courts. In the U.S., the law varies by state, but in most states, the law says that a person who illegally enters a home with a weapon, the owner of the home is permitted to defend themselves, their family and their property, as long as they are not using excessive force. But, the verse you are quoting is not NT law as opposed to OT law. It is an explanation of the correct application of OT law. It mentions, what you have heard. What the people heard was the application of the Mosaic law, and Jesus is refining that interpretation. In the NT, several different members or leaders of the Roman army are mentioned. These centurions and others came to Jesus and believed on Jesus. Jesus granted their requests. The officers in the Roman army of course carried weapons, and financed those beneath them, providing weapons. Jesus never told them to stop carrying weapons or to change professions. In the early church, there were many members of the Roman army which became Christian. No where in scripture does it say to cease being a member of the army. I wish I could remember, but I need to search some books to find which one, but one of the cities visited by Paul was a city known to be a big retirement community for ex-officers. In the NT, and in the history of the Church, it is standard practice that when a person goes out as a missionary, they go un-armed, as their primary purpose is to share the gospel. They are called to put their lives on the line, for the sake of the gospel. Hundreds of missionaries have died on the mission field, killed by those to whom they are preaching the gospel. Most missionaries take a pacifist stand to the people they are called to. Most of the stories in the NT, are about apostles, like Paul, who were sent out as missionaries to share the gospel. Yet, those who are saved by these missionaries, are not told to disarm themselves. They are not told to change professions. It is only those sent out to share the gospel to a specific group of people, who disarm and die for the cause of bringing the gospel to 'heathen'. Very well written response. You make valid points concerning the verse I used and will pray over them. My overall point remains unchanged. Jesus didn't promote violence. Jesus called for us to respond peacefully and not respond to violence with more violence. Nowhere in scripture does it say to respond peacefully is only for missionary's, and that the words of Christ in regards to peace doesn't apply to us in our everyday lives. If it doesn't affect our personal lives then what is the point?

By the way, I almost forgot to post this. Luke 22:36-38 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough. The swords were not for self-defense but for fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah.

I don't see a contradiction between the 2. Are you implying that all military and all police only follow God and not worldly law and standards all the time? If not I don't see the problem. I don't think I have ever met a cop that deserved respect. Read the passage again brother. We respect authority (police, military) not because they deserve it but because that is honoring God. It is a respect of the position. I think you are confusing it with respecting individuals who serve in that position. Some serve well. Others do not. Do you see? God bless, GE How is saying that police and the military follow worldly laws and worldly standards violate this piece of scripture? Are just trying to pick a fight? I was simply going off of what you said here: I figured you'd welcome being pointed and encouraged to read Scripture. And I'm trusting the Holy Spirit to be the Holy Spirit by speaking through God's Word. What is God trying to say to us here? Not trying to pick a fight. Trying to learn together. God bless, GE If you have a question, then ask, but please don't patronize me or try to lead me around by the nose. If you have a point , just say it.

So what you are saying is that you are incapable of answering my questions in post # 291.

To illustrate this, consider the folks dying in sudan. Where is the outcry over this? I hear silence from the world, the same world that screamed about gaza. How many have been murdered in mexico by the drug cartels in the past few years? Last I heard (which was months ago) it was 60,000. With many thousands more missing and presumed dead. The silence from the world is deafening.

You want to start over, I have no problem with that. I will start with reaping and sowing. What does reaping and sowing have to do with guns? Let me explain. If you take a seed, lets say an apple seed and plant it in the ground when it is time reap what you have sown you will have apples. The same goes for any and all seeds. Whatever the seed is, that is what will be there to harvest at reaping time. It doesn't matter WHY you plant the seed, just that you plant a seed. Every action and word is a seed. The above is a biblical principle. The bible talks about it directly or indirectly a lot. So what does this have to do with guns? Simple, violence is a seed like so many other things. One of my favorite verses talks about this same principle with violence in mind. Revelation 13:10 He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. Violence is a seed, like all seeds it doesn't matter why it is planted, it doesn't matter what the motive is behind it being planted, no all that matters is if it is planted or not. because once the seed of violence is planted, you will reap a harvest of violence. Sorry for the late reply, I havent been able to get on until now, but I feel that verse is taken out of context, that verse is part of a prophecy concerning end times-if you take it like you are meaning it to, then now the Bible is in contradiction to itself, because Jesus himself commanded His disciples to sell their garments and buy a sword (luke 22:36) Why would he order His disciples to purchase a weapon that was evil? Lets compare the sword and the gun. A gun, can be used for many things-offense, (war) defense, as well as food gathering. You can't call gathering food evil-God commanded of us to have dominion over the earth. So the gun, does have a practical purpose besides the killing of humans. A Sword on the other hand-can only do two things-kill others (offensive) or defend oneself against an attacker. Its one and only purpose, is to kill. period. You cannot hunt with a sword (kinda hard to take a deer down with one!) Yet, Jesus told His disciples to purchase them. And later, in the garden, notice, Jesus did not rebuke Peter for having the sword that He told Peter to buy-nor did He order Peter to get rid of it, instead He rebuked Him on the use of it-Jesus basically said this is the wrong time. I know, the standard come back to Jesus ordering the disciples to buy swords-was that Jesus had a "reason" well, it doesn't even matter what that reason is. If swords were evil, then Jesus could not have told His disciples to buy them. If Jesus told His disciples to do something evil-no matter what the reason, then Jesus is not God. A perfect God would not tell us to break His own commandments, so by that logic, we can only assume that the ownership of swords (or guns) is not, a sin. At all. You cannot say that it is, otherwise you are attacking the deity of Christ Himself. Even your verse in revelation-does not say that it is a sin to own a sword, just to kill by it. What is a sin-or is not a sin, depends on what you do with the weapon of choice. I think we can all agree, going out and murdering someone-be it with a sword, knife, gun, car or any other weapon-is wrong, and is a sin. But according to OT law there is a time and place-where it is lawful-and ok, to use a weapon in self defense. Many of these have been brought up already so I won't bother repeating them-but before you throw out the argument that we are no longer under the law-your right, we are not under the law, but that doesn't mean the law is thrown out. The law, was put in place so we know what sin is (romans 7:7) So if the law defines sin-and the law allows for self defense, then obviously, defending yourself-whether its by sword, or by gun, is not a sin. It is not the weapon that makes a person violent-it is ones heart.

amen to that...... though I find it hard to wear out my electronic versions.... but up until the early 90's it was a mess. I used to use little stick on tabs to find pages about different subjects before I had access to Thompson's..... it turns out that when you get about half the pages earmarked, one can't find things anyway. Biblesoft has fixed most of my studies, and even on my phone one can use searching and cross reference material without making notes.

My bible is blood stained, tear stained, grease stained (looked up a verse while I was working on my motorcycle), wriiten in with pencil, highlighted and water damaged (flooded out while in a tent in Mozambique). Show me a bible that is falling apart and I will show you a person who isn't.

Yes, we will be alive in Christ, but we are not the intercessor of prayers ... Jesus is.