OneAccord

Settle down Cats! Please don't misconstrue what I posted. I never said that our troops are a bunch of thugs and rapists. But I also don't believe the majority are Christians. I respect our troops for what they're up against, and I even had ayellow ribbon on my door for a long time, until it got so faded by the sun that I took it down out of respect. There are lots of troops coming home who don't agree with what's going on over there. It's a quagmire and a blight. I also don't believe that this is the battle between good and evil that Christians make it out to be. The battle between good and evil is a spiritual battle. This is Crusade mentality. How do you feel about the Crusades? Were they a blight on Christianity or a legitimate means of spreading the gospel? As far as this war being a wonderful opporutnity to share the gospel with the Iraqis, this is ludicrous!!! Bomb them back into the stone age, destroy the infrastructure, kill 100,000 innocent civilians, then tell them how much Jesus loves them????????

I have no trouble with them turning to God, I just wish they were seeking to love their enemies, bless those who persecute them, and overcome evil with good, like Jesus taught. I understand that they are just following orders. How come I never hear anyone praying for the Iraqis? It's always God bless AMerica. How about God bless Iraq? Let's here some real compassion for the innocent blood being shed over there.

I am borrowing this from another thread, this is the best answer I have seen to this query, praise God for being faithful in revealing His heart: Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" Mt. 5:21-22; 27-28; 31-44 KJV. Now, as Jesus says, under the OT law, you could lust after a woman in your heart and not sin. You could hate your enemies and not sin. You could just give your wife a bill of divorcement to divorce her and not sin. You could be angry with your brother and not sin. You could swear by heaven to show you were truthful and not sin. You could avenge evil with evil, i.e. eye for an eye, and not sin. Now in the NT, Jesus tells us that the new 'spiritual' covenant is even more strict. If you even look at a woman with any amount of lust in your heart, you've sinned. If you hate your enemies, you've sinned. If you are angry with your brother, you've sinned. If you get divorced for any other reason than fornication, you've sinned. The bottom line is, it's all about the heart now. Under the old 'physical' covenant, God couldn't deal with the heart, or spirit. He had to deal with the natural or physical. Now, under the new 'spiritual' covenant, we are held to an even higher standard. Along with that however comes the even greater power of being saved from the bondage of sin. That couldn't happen under the old covenant. If one doesn't lust after another woman/man, they won't commit adultery. If one doesn't hate their enemies, they won't avenge out of a carnal attitude. What we have now is a new thing, the fulfillment of what God prophesied in the OT. What happened in the OT is an ensample (example) for us (2 Ptr. 2:6; 1 Cor. 10:11).

I notice that the marines have to turn to King David as their war hero, Jesus wasn't warlike enough for that. Personally I was quite offended by this article. I think it is shameful to be using Scripture to be getting pumped up for committing murderous carnage. It also seems a bit off to bring the Iraqis freedom from oppression, rape murder and torutre by oppressing, raping, murdering and torturing them. Seems a far cry from Loving thy neighbor as oneself and blessing those who persecute you.

Well apparently this "Spirit of Elijah" is not done yet as there is still a lot of restoring to do. Do you think then that the "Spirit of Elijah" is due to incarnate again in the endtimes? Or were the prophecies regarding Elijah fulfilled in John? PS: Dad Ernie, I am not ignoring your responses, they are well-thought out and helpful. Thanks for taking the time to type them up.

In the verse in question it appears that we are to strive for our entry into the kingdom, if you don';t make the gate you are on the broad road to destruction. It doesn't appear to be suggesting striving for rewards because you are already saved and granted access to the kingdom.

Resist in the Greek is Anthistemi and means to stand opposed to. Evil is Poneros, which is evil in the general sense, evil person is not an accurate translation. Resist not evil, do not stand opposed to evil........seems like an odd saying and is contradicted by both Paul and James when they say: Therefore take up the full armor of God so that you will be able to resist in the evil day. Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. You all are giving very thoughtful responses to this verse, it's still a stumbling block to me, as in context it is also alongside other verses such as Love Your Enemies and Bless those Who Persecute You.

I guess it's the word STRIVE that is tripping me up here. According to a Greek lexicon STRIVE means: 1. to enter a contest: contend in the gymnastic games 2. to contend with adversaries, fight 3. metaph. to contend, struggle, with difficulties and dangers 4. to endeavour with strenuous zeal, strive: to obtain something The act of being saved is not a striving and contending as this word suggests. It is a simple act of faith on our part and grace on God's part. It would seem that this idea of striving and struggling and contending must refer to something other than our salvation.

But Wordsower, it sounds like you're saying that they just weren't worthy of making the 'rapture', but after a little tribulation they'll get to the kingdom. Jesus seems to saying that the ones who don't enter in, who have the door shut to them, aren't making it into the kingdom at all.

Easy, huh? I don't think so. Anyway, I challenge your response with regard to the scene with the woman caught in adultery. It was those in authority who brought her to Jesus, and according to your reply, these are the ones who had been "put in place by the Lord to take care of these things". Clearly this woman was guilty, caught in the very act. The law is very clear about adultery, it's even one of the Ten Commandments, and Jesus had a few words to say about adultery Himself. And yet it was not an eye for an eye, nor judgement of any kind, neither condemnation. Rather this woman's law-breaking was put forth by Jesus as a mirror to each accuser's own sin. God is the supreme judge and He will exact an eye for an eye, but none of us are righteous enough to condemn another. I find the eye for an eye/resist not an evil person to be an extremely complex dichotomy. It epitomizes the entire Law vs Grace debates common in the church, as well as the New Testament principle of forgiveness. Which do we heed as Christians: "An eye for an eye" or "resist not an evil person" What does "Resist not an evil person" mean? This is a hard saying.

Thanks Larry, I agree that there are many paradoxes in the Bible in which both are true. There are just so many example of people in the gospels that don't make it in because they failed in some way, which defies the idea of grace as a free gift. The rich man who would not sell everything he owned, although he was 'righteous' in every other way. The foolish virgins must not have been saved in the first place if the OSAS doctrine is true, otherwise if they were saved then they failed to gain entrance because they slacked in their works. I'm afraid this boils down to that infernal OSAS question, of which there have been plenty of debates on this board and thorughout Christiandom. Sigh.

What does it mean that John came in "the spirit and power" of Elijah? Who then is Elijah? Is he the Prophet? He aparently has some pretty high standing in the heavenly realms, being taken up rather than dying. He never died that we know of, unless he was in fact John the Baptist (which he denied in JOhn 1:21) But we see him on the mount of transfiguration in a glorified body. The idea of him "restoring all things" is a pretty big mission, I thought Jesus was the restorer of all things. I just never seem to be able to get a full understanding of who John the Baptist was. Or Elijah., for that matter.

I don't see any problem with assembling for worship on Sundays as the early church in Acts and beyond did, but what about resting on Saturday to acknowledge God's Sabbath?

Amen Leonard!!!! Our church takes it once a month, but I wish we took it every time we assembled. In the writings of the early church, they defintely did it often, as part of their church services. I think they did a LOT more praying and communion than we do now. In fact, one of the writings I read said that they even saved some of the bread and wine to bring to the people who were not able to attend that day. I am wondering how folks feel about taking communion privately, both at home with just your family, and also even alone?

Matthew 11:13,14 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to recieve it, he is Elijah who is to come. Matthew 17:11,12 Indeed Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished. It appears that Jesus is saying that John the Baptist is Elijah but: John 1:21 And they asked him (John), "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." I'm also interested in the phrase in Matthew 17:11 that says that Elijah will restore all things. According to Acts 3:21 heaven must recieve Jesus until the "times of the restoration of all things" which apparently has not been fulfilled yet.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. If salvation is by grace through faith, a gift from God, not of works, lest anyone should boast (Eph 2:8,9) why then must we strive to enter the narrow gate? Would striving be considered a works?

Matthew 5:38,39 You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I tell you not to resist and evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. How is it that the Scripture "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" which appears three times in the OT Deut 19:21, Levitcus 24:20 and Exodus 21:24, is interpreted by Jesus to mean Resist not an evil person, turn the other cheek." Jesus said early in Matthew 5:17,18, 19 "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly I say to you till heaven and earth pass away not one jot or tittle will pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments........... Surely when people were carrying out the eye for an eye tooth for a tooth judgements they believed that they were being obedient to the commandments in the Book of the Law. Why is Jesus' command to "Resist not an evil person" such a seemingly complete opposite to the Law as it stood?

Mighty convenient timing, don't you think? Another election ploy, no doubt. See that ye are not troubled, for nation will rise against nation...these things must come to pass................

I don't like the idea of terrorists determining the fate of this election. You don't seriously believe that terrorists determine the fate of this nation do you? The fate of the nation is in God's hands, no less.

Very interesting! I came across that very same verse just a few days ago and had the same reaction. Wow! Cutting is mentioned in the Bible!! The only other reference to it is when Elijah and the priests were having a standoff at the altar and the priests were trying to call down fire from God and were cutting themselves. Also there's a place in Leviticus where it is forbidden, somewhere right along with the prohibition against tattooing. (Sorry, I'm feeling too lazy to look up the verses.) In Mark, the verse at hand, this man had LEGIONS of demons in him. Can we conclude that folks who cut themselves have an unclean spirit or two?

I don't have any trouble with the concept of reconciling with a brother that has something against you. What I am having trouble with is the idea of "agreeing" with an adversary, unless of course you are the guilty party and "agreeing" is an admission of guilt and subsequent repentance. The only way this verse makes sense to me is if the person that needs to "agree" is clearly guilty. Otherwise "agreeing" with an adversary/enemy/opponent if you are innocent doesn't make sense unless it falls in the category of "resist not an evil person" . In the Bible the word adversary is so often used for Satan and his minions, or the pharisees, scribes and other opponents of Jesus. Do we "agree" with them?

Good post, Suzanne! Interesting that the "brother" in the preceeding verses becomes the "adversary" in the one in question. I guess the verse must be read with the assumption that the person is guilty of offense. The verses you posted from Proverbs are topnotch in relation to this verse. Thank you. It reminds me of Jacob and Esau---"a brother is born for adversity". That is a pretty hard saying. Do you think this verse could possibly apply to our spiritual adversary (you know who) as well?

Okay here's another verse. Help me out with this one: Matthew 5:25 Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly I say to you you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. This verse is in the context of being angry with your brother without cause, and reconciling with your brother if he has anything against you. Who is the adversary in this passage? My lexicon says adversary is an opponent or enemy. Is this adversary supposed to be the brother who has something against us in the previous passage? Jesus' adversaries crucified Him, but do we see Him "agreeing" with them? Satan is the archetypal adversary, opponent and enemy of the Christian. Should we "agree" with him? Strong's 2468 "agree" means to give oneself wholly to, wish one well, make peace with. Strong's 476 "adversary" is antidikos, an opponent (in a lawsuit), spec. Satan (as the arch-enemy):--adversary. Antidikos is only used 5 times in the NT, twice in this verse, once in the parallel verse in Luke 12:58; in the parable of the widow pleading the unjust judge to avenge her of her adversary; and finally in Peter's famous verse about Because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walking about seeking whom he may devour Why are we counseled to "agree" with our adversary?

One more tidbit about this verse. The words "gone over" should be translated "finished" to be closer to the original intended meaning according to the Greek. The word translated "gone over" is "teleo" in the Greek. This word "teleo" is the same word that Jesus used on the cross when He said "It is finished. The verse reads more like "You will not have completed your assignment to the cities of Israel" until the Son of Man comes. Some of the more literal translations of the Bible say "Amen I say to you, you will not have completed the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" Or "You will not have finished the cities of Israel....." There is nothing in the Greek about going over or through the cities, that is assumed because of the context of the disciples being sent forth to the house of Israel to preach the news of the kingdom. This concept of "completing the cities of Israel" is difficult and intriguing. Are they "completed" once they have been preached to? Or completed if they repent and recieve the good news? There is a sense from earlier verses in the chapter that the disciples have, in a sense, judged the cities they visited with the gospel. Matt 10:13If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you. Plus shaking the dust of their feet is sort of a judgement. Is this judgement the "completion" of a city?