Re: @ SEX IN THE PARADISE FOR PLEASURE THROUGHOUT ETERNITY !

[OB...@aol.com]

On Apr 26, 12:46 pm, "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:
> This was one of the most important discovery I have made by searching
> through the Word of God years ago .I think it was the year 1978 and
> was based on Psalm 128 .
>
> Once you fully come to realization that God Yahweh hides many truths
> from mankind and discover that sex in actuality is for pleasure it
> takes a huge bite from many of our concerns and can put all things
> upside down in the understanding of the happiness and purpose in our
> lives.
>
> Have you met somebody who claims that sex is for reproduction only and
> that person is backing his view on a quote from the Bible ?
>
> If you take one quote from the Bible you can come with any thing you
> wish .
> But you need God's guidance to know all aspects of a given issue and
> understand properly many other verses from the Bible.
> The whole process is so complex that I completely thank God for
> guiding me in a unique way to unerstand the sexuality of man the best
> possible way that reflects God's love, power the most peoole have no
> idea what they are about .
>
> Ask any woman and if she has 4 children she should have had sexual
> intercourse 4 times only in her lifetime to have these children .If
> that so ?
>
> Any married woman that cannot have children should stay in marriage
> all her life without sex .Can you find such a woman in the whole
> world ?
>
> How about almost all men masturbating ?  You can't make a baby by
> masturbating on your own etc . And I could go on and on with many more
> questions or suggestions of the same type . No way sex in man's life
> is only for procreation ! More ! Mostly it is for pleasure alone in
> marriages .
>
> A married woman may have had sex thousands times but she has only 2 or
> 3 children .Sex for procreation is less than 0.001 % of all sexual
> activity for many or most woman .
>
> The earth is going to populated some day in God's Kingdom so only sex
> for pleasure will be dominant thing  for most of the  time . Even the
> word most is a huge exaggeration as we are talking in terms of
> eternity .
> So we can say sex is basically for pleasure for mankind and if so I
> can say absolutely now the life in the Paradise will be a very happy
> life for anyone saved that will live there .
>
> To lose such an opportunity and die for ever instead ere is a horrible
> thing and it cause any one to cry loud !
>
> You can lose all your life now ,anything that you have now but you
> should not lose a chace to live for ever .That is why it is best
> occupation now for a man to search for God and to get His favor that
> you will make to the Paradise.
> This is the best time you spend now by searching for the Biblical
> truths of the Bible and how to get into the Paradise.
>
> You should thank God now already that you are one of not so many
> people who vistit this discussion group to read this big news about
> sex !
>
> http://www.focusonthebible2011.com

--
Of course now more you realize that sex will be in the Paradise for
pleasure the more you may stay out away from sex in this present
life .It is possible that you may stop masturbating right away , stop
watching adult movies etc etc because you want to be now the most pure
man on earth awaiting what is going to happen in the future that is
sure to come some day and at that time it will be the Present Tense
for you .
You need to work hard and exercies in your thinking to stay your
course. You need to understand passing of the time that past is the
past and when you wake up in the morning all past is gone and you may
want to feel the present morning time the best way you can .

I will give you a nice instruction .
For instance you had sex 2000 times before and now today at this
moment you have sex again . All past 2000 times of sex you had don't
count right now what counts is the Present Tense the present time yoy
have sex .It destroys all past sex making it like non existentent or
ever taking place it so blotted out by actual sex.
The same is when that time comes in the Paradise all past sex will be
nothingness as it did not happen at all, and what will count at that
time will be that you have sex at that time in the Paradise.

Even to have sex 2000 times you had to live from one day to another so
the continued life is the essence here .
To think about past already you need to live the next day to go back
to the past .
Life for ever is what counts then and it is in the hands of God to
whom He will give it .

http://www.focusonthebible2011.com

[vince garcia]

and here i was, thinking you were dead.

Well, the good thing is, you still have a chance to repent from your
false prophecies

[Ike]

Take your perverted cult ass on over to the xxx newsgroups.

Ike

[OB...@aol.com]

This awesome truth about sex in the Paradise was specifically hidden
from mankind as many believing people would not want to marry now
simply by taking up a delaying tactic .
Like you wanting to eat apples can wait it out till the next week when
better apples will be delivered to the store .Sex in the Paradise sure
will be much better than now !

http://www.focusonthebible2011.com

[Ike]

On 5/4/2013 5:42 PM, OB...@aol.com wrote:

> This awesome truth about sex in the Paradise was specifically hidden

> from mankind...

You have no idea what you're talking about, pervert.

Ike

[vince garcia]

It's "hidden" because it's FALSE DOCTRINE like everything else you
preach

Do the JWs preach the resurrected will have sex in the afterlife?

[Ike]

On 5/6/2013 12:15 AM, OB...@aol.com wrote:

> --
> You have no idea how God Yahweh should be praised for creating man and
> woman .

You have no idea what that even means, cultist.

Ike

[OB...@aol.com]

__
Check what they teach . They believe 144000 servants of Jesus will be
taken to heaven all other saved will live on earth and look how they
paint the Paradise on the earth .


http://www.focusonthebible2011.com

[OB...@aol.com]

--
In Poland catholics worship Mary and it is the cult of the Virgin
Mary .
In the Polish language : Kult Maryi Dziewicy .Using this word kult
catholics are cultists.They follow Mary and to them it is offensive .
You should call me a sectarian may be just as the first christians who
had the true religion were viewed as a sect to the outsiders - Acts
28.22.


http://www.focusonthebible2011.com

[vince garcia]

I know this. I asked:

Do the JWs preach the resurrected will have sex in the afterlife?

DO they?

[Ike]

On 5/6/2013 11:54 PM, OB...@aol.com wrote:

> Check what they teach . They believe 144000 servants of Jesus will be
> taken to heaven all other saved will live on earth and look how they
> paint the Paradise on the earth .

Which is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH, just like everything else that
the JW cult teaches.

Jesus and His entourage, the 144,000, come back here; EVERYONE ELSE
STAYS BEHIND IN HEAVEN.

<chuckle>

Ike

[Ike]

On 5/7/2013 12:00 AM, OB...@aol.com wrote:
> On May 6, 7:13 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/6/2013 12:15 AM, OB...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> On May 5, 5:38 am, Ike <xhermaneicklebe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/2013 5:42 PM, OB...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> This awesome truth about sex in the Paradise was specifically hidden
>>>>> from mankind...
>>
>>>> You have no idea what you're talking about, pervert.
>>
>>>> Ike
>>
>>> --
>>> You have no idea how God Yahweh should be praised for creating man and
>>> woman .
>>
>> You have no idea what that even means, cultist.
>>
>> Ike

[yawn and snip the no-rebuttal rebuttal]

Ike

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <5188D9...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

Those who will reside on earth as humans will continue to have children until
the earth is 'full.' At that point the JWs don't make it clear whether men's
penis' will drop off or if the women will become sterile. The earth then will
be full of adult people who will live forever. Being consistent with JW
teachings, sex will end, because JWs don't believe in sex just for pleasure.
Don't forget, Charles Taze Russell never had sex with his wife.

[vince garcia]

amazing

[OB...@aol.com]

On May 7, 8:58 am, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> In article <5188D9C3.7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

--
If they don't believe sex is for pleasure mainly , ask anyone who is
married and has children how many times he had sex with his wife to
have these children . if he has 3 children basically he should have
had 3 sexual intercourses .

http://www.focusonthebible2011.com

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <a8d85df2-a319-473d...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
OB...@aol.com says...
>
>On May 7, 8:58=A0am, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>

>wrote:
>> In article <5188D9C3.7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>>
>>
>> >OB...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> On May 6, 7:02 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> > OB...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > > On Apr 26, 12:46 pm, "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:

>> >> > > > This was one of the most important discovery I have made by sear=
>ching
>> >> > > > through the Word of God years ago .I think it was the year 1978 =

>and
>> >> > > > was based on Psalm 128 .
>>

>> >> > > > Once you fully come to realization that God Yahweh hides many tr=
>uths
>> >> > > > from mankind and discover that sex in actuality is for pleasure =
>it
>> >> > > > takes a huge bite from many of our concerns and can put all thin=
>gs
>> >> > > > upside down in the understanding of the happiness and purpose in=
> our
>> >> > > > lives.
>>
>> >> > > > Have you met somebody who claims that sex is for reproduction on=

>ly and
>> >> > > > that person is backing his view on a quote from the Bible ?
>>

>> >> > > > If you take one quote from the Bible you can come with any thing=
> you
>> >> > > > wish .
>> >> > > > But you need God's guidance to know all aspects of a given issue=

> and
>> >> > > > understand properly many other verses from the Bible.
>> >> > > > The whole process is so complex that I completely thank God for

>> >> > > > guiding me in a unique way to unerstand the sexuality of man the=
> best
>> >> > > > possible way that reflects God's love, power the most peoole hav=

>e no
>> >> > > > idea what they are about .
>>

>> >> > > > Ask any woman and if she has 4 children she should have had sexu=
>al
>> >> > > > intercourse 4 times only in her lifetime to have these children =
>.If
>> >> > > > that so ?
>>
>> >> > > > Any married woman that cannot have children should stay in marri=

>age
>> >> > > > all her life without sex .Can you find such a woman in the whole
>> >> > > > world ?
>>

>> >> > > > How about almost all men masturbating ? =A0You can't make a baby=
> by
>> >> > > > masturbating on your own etc . And I could go on and on with man=
>y more
>> >> > > > questions or suggestions of the same type . No way sex in man's =
>life
>> >> > > > is only for procreation ! More ! Mostly it is for pleasure alone=
> in
>> >> > > > marriages .
>>
>> >> > > > A married woman may have had sex thousands times but she has onl=
>y 2 or
>> >> > > > 3 children .Sex for procreation is less than 0.001 % of all sexu=

>al
>> >> > > > activity for many or most woman .
>>

>> >> > > > The earth is going to populated some day in God's Kingdom so onl=
>y sex
>> >> > > > for pleasure will be dominant thing =A0for most of the =A0time .=

> Even the
>> >> > > > word most is a huge exaggeration as we are talking in terms of
>> >> > > > eternity .

>> >> > > > So we can say sex is basically for pleasure for mankind and if s=
>o I
>> >> > > > can say absolutely now the life in the Paradise will be a very h=

>appy
>> >> > > > life for anyone saved that will live there .
>>

>> >> > > > To lose such an opportunity and die for ever instead ere is a ho=

>rrible
>> >> > > > thing and it cause any one to cry loud !
>>

>> >> > > > You can lose all your life now ,anything that you have now but y=

>ou
>> >> > > > should not lose a chace to live for ever .That is why it is best

>> >> > > > occupation now for a man to search for God and to get His favor =

>that
>> >> > > > you will make to the Paradise.

>> >> > > > This is the best time you spend now by searching for the Biblica=

>l
>> >> > > > truths of the Bible and how to get into the Paradise.
>>
>> >> > > > You should thank God now already that you are one of not so many

>> >> > > > people who vistit this discussion group to read this big news ab=

>out
>> >> > > > sex !
>>
>> >> > > >http://www.focusonthebible2011.com
>>
>> >> > > --

>> >> > > This awesome truth about sex in the Paradise was specifically hidd=

>en
>> >> > > from mankind as many believing people would not want to marry now
>> >> > > simply by taking up a delaying tactic .
>>
>> >> > It's "hidden" because it's FALSE DOCTRINE like everything else you
>> >> > preach
>>
>> >> > Do the JWs preach the resurrected will have sex in the afterlife?
>>
>> >> __
>> >> Check what they teach . They believe 144000 servants of Jesus will be
>> >> taken to heaven all other saved will live on earth and look how they
>> >> paint the Paradise on the earth .
>>
>> >>http://www.focusonthebible2011.com
>>
>> >I know this. I asked:
>>
>> >Do the JWs preach the resurrected will have sex in the afterlife?
>>
>> >DO they?
>>
>> Those who will reside on earth as humans will
>> continue to have children until the earth is
>> 'full.' At that point the JWs don't make it
>> clear whether men's penis' will drop off or if
>> the women will become sterile. The earth
>> then will be full of adult people who will

>> live forever. =A0Being consistent with JW

>> teachings, sex will end, because JWs don't
>> believe in sex just for pleasure. Don't forget,
>> Charles Taze Russell never had sex with his
>> wife.
>

>If they don't believe sex is for pleasure mainly ,
>ask anyone who is married and has children how
>many times he had sex with his wife to have
>these children . if he has 3 children basically
>he should have had 3 sexual intercourses .

I see your knowledge of biology is severely limited.

JWs have numerous rules regarding sex. Sex is prohibited for unmarried couples,
and that includes touching or fondling of the genitals and female breasts.
Homosexuality and lesbianism is prohibited. Oral sex is prohibited. Anal sex
is prohibited. Beastiality is prohibited. Masturbation is prohibited. Tubal
ligation and vasectomies are frowned upon.

[Ike]

Change your handle, blasphemer: The only "anointed remnant" there will
be will be those 144,000 Israelite-Christians whom God has reserved unto
Himself for the last days of the End of the Age--AND YOU AIN'T IT.

Ike

[Greg Carr]

On May 8, 6:40 am, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> In article <a8d85df2-a319-473d-833f-853a8e3db...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

A JW I worked with told me that oral sex was no longer prohibited for
married couples.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <4717891c-106c-4cc3...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Greg Carr says...
>
>On May 8, 6:40=A0am, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>> In article <a8d85df2-a319-473d-833f-853a8e3db...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> OB...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>> >On May 7, 8:58=3DA0am, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>

>> >wrote:
>> >> In article <5188D9C3.7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>>
>> >> >OB...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> On May 6, 7:02 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > OB...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > On Apr 26, 12:46 pm, "OB...@aol.com" <OB...@aol.com> wrote:

>> >> >> > > > This was one of the most important discovery I have made by s=
>ear=3D
>> >ching
>> >> >> > > > through the Word of God years ago .I think it was the year 19=
>78 =3D

>> >and
>> >> >> > > > was based on Psalm 128 .
>>

>> >> >> > > > Once you fully come to realization that God Yahweh hides many=
> tr=3D
>> >uths
>> >> >> > > > from mankind and discover that sex in actuality is for pleasu=
>re =3D
>> >it
>> >> >> > > > takes a huge bite from many of our concerns and can put all t=
>hin=3D
>> >gs
>> >> >> > > > upside down in the understanding of the happiness and purpose=
> in=3D
>> > our
>> >> >> > > > lives.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Have you met somebody who claims that sex is for reproduction=
> on=3D

>> >ly and
>> >> >> > > > that person is backing his view on a quote from the Bible ?
>>

>> >> >> > > > If you take one quote from the Bible you can come with any th=
>ing=3D
>> > you
>> >> >> > > > wish .
>> >> >> > > > But you need God's guidance to know all aspects of a given is=
>sue=3D

>> > and
>> >> >> > > > understand properly many other verses from the Bible.

>> >> >> > > > The whole process is so complex that I completely thank God f=
>or
>> >> >> > > > guiding me in a unique way to unerstand the sexuality of man =
>the=3D
>> > best
>> >> >> > > > possible way that reflects God's love, power the most peoole =
>hav=3D

>> >e no
>> >> >> > > > idea what they are about .
>>

>> >> >> > > > Ask any woman and if she has 4 children she should have had s=
>exu=3D
>> >al
>> >> >> > > > intercourse 4 times only in her lifetime to have these childr=
>en =3D
>> >.If
>> >> >> > > > that so ?
>>
>> >> >> > > > Any married woman that cannot have children should stay in ma=
>rri=3D
>> >age
>> >> >> > > > all her life without sex .Can you find such a woman in the wh=
>ole
>> >> >> > > > world ?
>>
>> >> >> > > > How about almost all men masturbating ? =3DA0You can't make a=
> baby=3D
>> > by
>> >> >> > > > masturbating on your own etc . And I could go on and on with =
>man=3D
>> >y more
>> >> >> > > > questions or suggestions of the same type . No way sex in man=
>'s =3D
>> >life
>> >> >> > > > is only for procreation ! More ! Mostly it is for pleasure al=
>one=3D
>> > in
>> >> >> > > > marriages .
>>
>> >> >> > > > A married woman may have had sex thousands times but she has =
>onl=3D
>> >y 2 or
>> >> >> > > > 3 children .Sex for procreation is less than 0.001 % of all s=
>exu=3D

>> >al
>> >> >> > > > activity for many or most woman .
>>

>> >> >> > > > The earth is going to populated some day in God's Kingdom so =
>onl=3D
>> >y sex
>> >> >> > > > for pleasure will be dominant thing =3DA0for most of the =3DA=
>0time .=3D
>> > Even the
>> >> >> > > > word most is a huge exaggeration as we are talking in terms o=
>f
>> >> >> > > > eternity .
>> >> >> > > > So we can say sex is basically for pleasure for mankind and i=
>f s=3D
>> >o I
>> >> >> > > > can say absolutely now the life in the Paradise will be a ver=
>y h=3D

>> >appy
>> >> >> > > > life for anyone saved that will live there .
>>

>> >> >> > > > To lose such an opportunity and die for ever instead ere is a=
> ho=3D

>> >rrible
>> >> >> > > > thing and it cause any one to cry loud !
>>

>> >> >> > > > You can lose all your life now ,anything that you have now bu=
>t y=3D
>> >ou
>> >> >> > > > should not lose a chace to live for ever .That is why it is b=
>est
>> >> >> > > > occupation now for a man to search for God and to get His fav=
>or =3D

>> >that
>> >> >> > > > you will make to the Paradise.

>> >> >> > > > This is the best time you spend now by searching for the Bibl=
>ica=3D

>> >l
>> >> >> > > > truths of the Bible and how to get into the Paradise.
>>

>> >> >> > > > You should thank God now already that you are one of not so m=
>any
>> >> >> > > > people who vistit this discussion group to read this big news=
> ab=3D

>> >out
>> >> >> > > > sex !
>>
>> >> >> > > >http://www.focusonthebible2011.com
>>
>> >> >> > > --

>> >> >> > > This awesome truth about sex in the Paradise was specifically h=
>idd=3D
>> >en
>> >> >> > > from mankind as many believing people would not want to marry n=

>ow
>> >> >> > > simply by taking up a delaying tactic .
>>

>> >> >> > It's "hidden" because it's FALSE DOCTRINE like everything else yo=

>u
>> >> >> > preach
>>
>> >> >> > Do the JWs preach the resurrected will have sex in the afterlife?
>>
>> >> >> __

>> >> >> Check what they teach . They believe 144000 servants of Jesus will =
>be
>> >> >> taken to heaven all other saved will live on earth and look how the=

>y
>> >> >> paint the Paradise on the earth .
>>
>> >> >>http://www.focusonthebible2011.com
>>
>> >> >I know this. I asked:
>>
>> >> >Do the JWs preach the resurrected will have sex in the afterlife?
>>
>> >> >DO they?
>>
>> >> Those who will reside on earth as humans will
>> >> continue to have children until the earth is
>> >> 'full.' At that point the JWs don't make it
>> >> clear whether men's penis' will drop off or if
>> >> the women will become sterile. The earth
>> >> then will be full of adult people who will

>> >> live forever. =3DA0Being consistent with JW

>> >> teachings, sex will end, because JWs don't
>> >> believe in sex just for pleasure. Don't forget,
>> >> Charles Taze Russell never had sex with his
>> >> wife.
>>
>> >If they don't believe sex is for pleasure mainly ,
>> >ask anyone who is married and has children how
>> >many times he had sex with his wife to have
>> >these children . if he has 3 children basically
>> >he should have had 3 sexual intercourses .
>>
>> I see your knowledge of biology is severely limited.
>>
>> JWs have numerous rules regarding sex. Sex is
>> prohibited for unmarried couples, and that includes
>> touching or fondling of the genitals and female
>> breasts. Homosexuality and lesbianism is prohibited.
>> Oral sex is prohibited. Anal sex is prohibited.
>> Beastiality is prohibited. Masturbation is
>> prohibited. Tubal ligation and vasectomies are
>> frowned upon.
>
>A JW I worked with told me that oral sex was no
>longer prohibited for married couples.

That is not true. The elders no longer ask married couples but it is still
considered a sexual perversion. If a wife complained to the elders that her
husband demands oral sex, he could be disfellowshipped if he didn't stop. At
one time a JW wife could get a 'scriptual' divorce if she said her husband
forced her to perform oral sex.

w83 3/15 p. 31 Honor Godly Marriage!

"...if it becomes known that a member of the congregation is practicing or
openly advocating perverted sex relations within the marriage bond, that one
certainly would not be irreprehensible, and so would not be acceptable for
special privileges, such as serving as an elder, a ministerial servant or a
pioneer. Such practice and advocacy could even lead to expulsion from the
congregation."

True Peace and Security [Revised 1986 version] Chapter 13 Your View of Sex- What
Difference Does It Make? pg. 150

"The inspired Bible writer did not have to explain the natural way in which the
reproductive organs of husband and wife complement each other. Homosexual
relations obviously cannot follow this natural way. So, male and female
homosexuals employ other forms of intercourse in what the apostle refers to as
'disgraceful sexual appetites' and "obscene" practices. (Romans 1:24-32) Could
married couples imitate such homosexual forms of intercourse in their own
marriage and still be free in God's eyes from expressing "disgraceful sexual
appetites" or "hurtful desire''?
On considering what the Scriptures say, a person may realize that his former
thinking on these matters was molded by those who are, as the Bible says, 'past
all moral sense.'"

Watchtower December 15th, 1989 "Jehovah is My Helper" pg. 19

"Since unrepentant practicers of fornication and adultery merit God's adverse
judgment, they will neither be admitted into heavenly New Jerusalem nor enjoy
life eternal on earth under Kingdom rule. (Revelation 21:1, 2, 8; Corinthians
6:9, 10) This warning not to defile the marriage bed should also make married
Christians avoid defiling sexual conduct with their mates..."

[Joe~Bean Inc.]

"Greg Carr" <gregca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4717891c-106c-4cc3...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

A JW I worked with told me that oral sex was no longer prohibited for
married couples.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And just *who* gives the GB/WTS the right to decide and dictate what married
couples can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes? They have no
right getting involved in married couple's sex lives. Don't you agree?

[vince garcia]

The RCC also has rules on what you can do in bed, so the largest
Christian denomination in the world likewise does it, so technically
that makes it the "norm" in Christinaity for the church to tell its
members what they can do in bed

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <518D5F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

And that's one of the reasons why churches are losing their members. Rules
invented thousands of years ago are no longer applicapable today, so people are
increasingly casting off old superstitious beliefs.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/pope-benedict-and-the-decline-of-american-catholicism-20130211

"Nearly one-third of Americans who were raised Catholic no longer describe
themselves as Catholics. Overall, American Catholic churches lost 5 percent of
their membership during the last decade, and the decline would have been much
steeper if not for the offsetting impact of Catholic immigrants from Latin
America."

http://www.ibtimes.com/church-decline-frances-vanishing-catholics-1125241#

"'The numbers are grim. Last year, according to reports, more than one-third (35
percent) of France�s population and almost two-thirds (63 percent) of youth said
they belonged to 'no religion.'"

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/10/world/la-fg-catholic-church-europe-20130311

"...the Roman Catholic Church, once a mighty force on its home continent, is
weaker in modern Europe than ever before, its influence ebbing, its privileged
status increasingly called into question."

[vince garcia]

Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> In article <518D5F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >
> >Joe~Bean Inc. wrote:
> >>
> >> "Greg Carr" <gregca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:4717891c-106c-4cc3...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> A JW I worked with told me that oral sex was no longer prohibited for
> >> married couples.
> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >> And just *who* gives the GB/WTS the right to decide and dictate what married
> >> couples can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes? They have no
> >> right getting involved in married couple's sex lives. Don't you agree?
> >
> >The RCC also has rules on what you can do in bed, so the largest
> >Christian denomination in the world likewise does it, so technically
> >that makes it the "norm" in Christinaity for the church to tell its
> >members what they can do in bed
>
> And that's one of the reasons why churches are losing their members.

They are mostly losing members because those members do not make God a
priority in their lives. I don't think most catholics even know there
ARE "rules" for sex past birth control

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <518EB3...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>> In article <518D5F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>> >
>> >Joe~Bean Inc. wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Greg Carr" <gregca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:4717891c-106c-4cc3...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> A JW I worked with told me that oral sex was no longer prohibited for
>> >> married couples.
>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> And just *who* gives the GB/WTS the right to decide and dictate what married
>> >> couples can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes? They have no
>> >> right getting involved in married couple's sex lives. Don't you agree?
>> >
>> >The RCC also has rules on what you can do in bed, so the largest
>> >Christian denomination in the world likewise does it, so technically
>> >that makes it the "norm" in Christinaity for the church to tell its
>> >members what they can do in bed
>>
>> And that's one of the reasons why churches are losing their members.
>
>They are mostly losing members because
>those members do not make God a priority
>in their lives.

Wake up and smell the coffee.

"I could not believe that anyone who has read this book would be so foolish as
to proclaim that the Bible in every literal word was the divinely inspired,
inerrant word of God. Have these people simply not read the text?"
"The best way to lose all is to cling with desperation to that which cannot
possibly be sustained literally. Literalistic Christians will learn that a God
or a faith system that has to be defended daily is finally no God or faith
system at all."
"I cannot say my yes to legends that have been clearly and fancifully created."
Bishop John Shelby Spong

"But the reality of the world today is that the grounding ethics of religion is
no longer adequate."
Dalai Lama

[vince garcia]

LOL, that guy's a fool. Would you bet your eternal destiny on HIS
opinion?! I sure wouldn't. His opinions have not and will not survive
the test of time.

The writers' of the Bible have, and will continue to do so

MY opinion, which is of far more value than his, is that every message
the Scripture seeks to convey on issues of faith and morals is the

divinely inspired, inerrant word of God

The text used to convey the message is not necessarily so in the same
manner.


How do we know? Because the bible sometimes quotes from a variety of
texts, or is made up of texts, that may not be letter per letter
identical, but the message they ultimately convey is

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <518FE6...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

Hardly a fool, my friend. He's taken the time to educate himself; he's got
folks like you pegged:
"A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and
fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its
defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet
for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted
to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life.
When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the
point categorically." Bishop John Shelby Spong

[vince garcia]

I'm not impressed with his "education"

I have known numerous people over the years with Masters and PHd's who
didn't know squat about the bible they were teaching, but were simply
regurgitaing bad info they were taught by equally ignorant teachers who
taught them.

I still hear "educated" people like Spong claim/teach/write illiterate
crap like the comma yohanneum was invented almost a thousand years after
the NT was written.

THAT'S how "educated" people like him often are.

he's got
> folks like you pegged:
> "A major function of fundamentalist religion is to bolster deeply insecure and
> fearful people. This is done by justifying a way of life with all of its
> defining prejudices. It thereby provides an appropriate and legitimate outlet
> for one's anger. The authority of an inerrant Bible that can be readily quoted
> to buttress this point of view becomes an essential ingredient to such a life.
> When that Bible is challenged, or relativized, the resulting anger proves the
> point categorically." Bishop John Shelby Spong

That's nice. As I said, his words have not and will not stand the test
of time. the authors of the Bible have and will continue to.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <5190E0...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>
>
>I have known numerous people over the
>years with Masters and PHd's who
>didn't know squat about the bible they
>were teaching

Uh huh... Sure you have...

[vince garcia]

Indeed i have. And jwsheffield just gave another example of what I'm
talking about. James the JW just posted a bunch of citations from
credentialed "scholars" "proving" early Christians absolutely did not
serve in the military. Sheffield refuted it by posting some
archeological info about actual 2nd-3rd century inscriptions and
gravetones proving that they did. (This is in addition to my refutation
of it earlier)

THIS is what I'm talking about--a bunch of historically illiterate
"scholars" talking out of their asses who DON'T know what they're
talking about, but simpkly regurgitating lies and bad information, and
that effluent being passed on by ignorant people like James to deceive
peple into their own false belief system

JUST LIKE SPONG

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <519223...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>> In article <5190E0...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >I have known numerous people over the
>> >years with Masters and PHd's who
>> >didn't know squat about the bible they
>> >were teaching
>>
>> Uh huh... Sure you have...
>>
>
>
>Indeed i have. And jwsheffield just gave another example of what I'm
>talking about. James the JW just posted a bunch of citations from
>credentialed "scholars" "proving" early Christians absolutely did not
>serve in the military. Sheffield refuted it by posting some
>archeological info about actual 2nd-3rd century inscriptions and
>gravetones proving that they did. (This is in addition to my refutation
>of it earlier)

I am posting from alt.religion.jehovahs-witn. I don't see that thread except
for the few that just got cross posted to here, so I don't know what historians
James used.
I had the same problem with a guy in this ng who said the cross was not
introduced into Christianity until 325 AD. Such statements can only be valid if
the author had no knowledge of crosses being used prior to that date, but if new
evidence reveals earlier use of the cross then the previous statement is not
valid, but those who want to believe it will continue to produce their outdated
"proof" that the cross was not used until 325 AD.
Your situation may be similar: Maybe the quoted historians were not aware of
the archaeological finds when they made their statements, however for someone to
use that as "proof" when further evidence is discovered is being dishonest.

>THIS is what I'm talking about--a bunch of historically illiterate
>"scholars" talking out of their asses who DON'T know what they're
>talking about, but simpkly regurgitating lies and bad information, and
>that effluent being passed on by ignorant people like James to deceive
>peple into their own false belief system
>
>JUST LIKE SPONG

It's not just the JWs. All fundamentalist religions use the same tactics. They
cherry pick their evidence. Anyone who believes the Bible or Koran or whatever
is the inerrant word of some god has to be wearing blinders. And just as Spong
said, if you show them evidence that it's just bullshit, they resort to
irrational anger.

[vince garcia]

How about reading justin martyr? I think HE predates 325 AD...

> Your situation may be similar: Maybe the quoted historians were not aware of
> the archaeological finds when they made their statements, however for someone to
> use that as "proof" when further evidence is discovered is being dishonest.

Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES' own illiteracy and
arguable WILLING ignorance and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
studying the truth, rather than the word of "historians" that fits his
agenda, a trait he's aleady shown me in his posts

>
> >THIS is what I'm talking about--a bunch of historically illiterate
> >"scholars" talking out of their asses who DON'T know what they're
> >talking about, but simpkly regurgitating lies and bad information, and
> >that effluent being passed on by ignorant people like James to deceive
> >peple into their own false belief system
> >
> >JUST LIKE SPONG
>
> It's not just the JWs. All fundamentalist religions use the same tactics. They
> cherry pick their evidence.

That's not necessarily true. I've tested his evidence against reality
and his evidence fails the test of truth. I've just shown how

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <51924F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your situation may be similar: Maybe the
>> quoted historians were not aware of the
>> archaeological finds when they made their
>> statements, however for someone to use that
>> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
>> is being dishonest.
>
>
>Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
>own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
>and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
>studying the truth, rather than the word of
>"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
>he's aleady shown me in his posts

From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff? Copy and paste his historical
evidence here and I'll take a look at it. The Watchtower often quotes people
whom they claim are experts in their field but are not.

[vince garcia]

Here is what james posted with the conclusion: "THUS THE BOTTOM LINE.
EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT ENGAGE IN WARS"

He also appealed to Justin Martyr to prove Christians did not remain in
the military or hold any sort of political office*, but I don't have
that reference. As I pointed out top him, even if a general practice
emerged, a general practice does not equate to a biblical comandment.

* refuted by scripture, but what does that matter?

____________________________________________________________



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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

{note from vince--THAT'S the sort of thing James wants to believe, and
is manifestly untrue. As I pointed out, many Christian jews fought in
the bar kochba revolt in the 130s until he declared himself to be the
messiah. THAT'S BECOMING A SOLDIER. He wants to imagine only what
happened within the recorded history of the Roman empire among GENTILE
Christians matters. I would also challenge Barnes, or anyone else, to
list every recorded instance of a Christian LEAVING military service
after conversion, and to admit the argument that "no Christian became a
soldier" is an argument from silence, the weakest possible]







Notice that last one, no soldier, after becoming a Christian,
remained in military service." Thus Jesus and others didn't have to
tell them to resign, but rather each person made that decision for
themselves after taking in Christian teachings.

THUS THE BOTTOM LINE. EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT ENGAGE IN WARS. Later
Christians did, but it was prophesied that bad people would infiltrate
the Christian congregations, And they did.

____________________________________________________________________

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <519270...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>> In article <51924F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>> >
>> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your situation may be similar: Maybe the
>> >> quoted historians were not aware of the
>> >> archaeological finds when they made their
>> >> statements, however for someone to use that
>> >> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
>> >> is being dishonest.
>> >
>> >
>> >Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
>> >own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
>> >and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
>> >studying the truth, rather than the word of
>> >"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
>> >he's aleady shown me in his posts
>>
>> From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff? Copy and paste his historical
>> evidence here and I'll take a look at it. The Watchtower often quotes people
>> whom they claim are experts in their field but are not.
>
>Here is what james posted with the conclusion: "THUS THE BOTTOM LINE.
>EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT ENGAGE IN WARS"

I'm sorry but I don't see anything. Can you copy the historians' names and what
they said?

[vince garcia]

Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> In article <519270...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >
> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <51924F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
> >> >
> >> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Your situation may be similar: Maybe the
> >> >> quoted historians were not aware of the
> >> >> archaeological finds when they made their
> >> >> statements, however for someone to use that
> >> >> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
> >> >> is being dishonest.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
> >> >own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
> >> >and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
> >> >studying the truth, rather than the word of
> >> >"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
> >> >he's aleady shown me in his posts
> >>
> >> From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff? Copy and paste his historical
> >> evidence here and I'll take a look at it. The Watchtower often quotes people
> >> whom they claim are experts in their field but are not.
> >
> >Here is what james posted with the conclusion: "THUS THE BOTTOM LINE.
> >EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT ENGAGE IN WARS"
>
> I'm sorry but I don't see anything. Can you copy the historians' names and what
> they said?

i've posted below what he posted by a variety of authors. If you can't
see it i don't understand how you can read my posts otherwise

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <51928A...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

Oops... I didn't scroll down far enough. I'll check them out. Thanks.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <519270...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>> In article <51924F...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>> >
>> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Your situation may be similar: Maybe the
>> >> quoted historians were not aware of the
>> >> archaeological finds when they made their
>> >> statements, however for someone to use that
>> >> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
>> >> is being dishonest.
>> >
>> >
>> >Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
>> >own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
>> >and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
>> >studying the truth, rather than the word of
>> >"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
>> >he's aleady shown me in his posts
>>
>> From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff?
>> Copy and paste his historical evidence here and
>> I'll take a look at it. The Watchtower often
>> quotes people whom they claim are experts in
>>their field but are not.
>
>Here is what james posted with the conclusion:
>"THUS THE BOTTOM LINE. EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT
>ENGAGE IN WARS"

I came across this:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=648&layout=html#c_lf0305_footnote_nt518

John Cecil Cadoux, in his book, "The Early Christian Attitude to War" comes to
the conclusion that Christian soldiers would be "unrepresentative of the normal
Christian habit." But he also admits that Professor James Franklin
Bethune-Baker, using the same information came to an exact opposite conclusion.
So, there you pretty much have it; look at the evidence and decide for yourself.

Cadoux presents a great deal of information, both for and against his
conclusion. Here are some examples from his book that tend to disagree with his
conclusion:

In 21 a.d. Tertullianus wrote: "And in fact, in order that I may approach the
real issue of the military garland, I think it has first to be investigated
whether military service is suitable for Christians at all."
Cadoux: "A little later, in arguing that no Christian ought to be a soldier, he
lets us see that there were Christians who took the opposite view and supported
their position by appealing to the examples of Moses, Aaron, Joshua, the
Israelites, and even John the Baptist. He himself says that Paul, in 'teaching
that everyone ought to live by his own labour, had introduced plenty of
examples, (those, namely), of soldiers, shepherds, and husbandmen.'"

Cadoux: "In the year 217 a.d. the tomb of an imperial official, Marcus Aurelius
Prosenes, received a supplementary inscription from his freedman, the Christian
Ampelius, who described himself as 'returning from the campaigns.' Another
inscription, about the middle of the third century, found at Hodjalar in
Phrygia, gives us the epitaph on the family tomb of two Christian soldiers."

Cadoux: "...even among the more intelligent and sincere Christians, who lived
in the times when participation in warfare had become a Christian problem, the
fact that the Old Testament wars were traditionally justified had some effect in
preventing a unanimous decision against such participation."

Cadoux: "While prayer for rulers in general appears at a very early point in
Christian literature, prayers specifically for the army are not mentioned, as
far as I have been able to discover, before the time of Tertullianus. This
writer however refers to it as a standing Christian usage. '(We are) all (of us)
always praying for all emperors, that their life may be prolonged, (their) rule
secure, (their) household (kept) in safety, (their) armies strong, the senate
faithful, the people upright, the world quiet, and whatever (else his) wishes
are (as) man and (as) Caesar.'"

Cadoux: "...there can be no doubt about the main fact, that, in or about 174
a.d., the Legio Fulminata contained a considerable number of Christian soldiers.
This means that the conversion of soldiers to Christianity must have been going
on for some little time previously, though for how long we do not know."

Cadoux: "Clemens of Alexandria does not seem ever to have faced the problem of
Christianity and war; and hence, despite his clear grasp of Christian principles
in the abstract, he uses expressions which concede the compatibility of military
service with the Christian faith."

Cadoux: [The soldier Basileides of Alexandria] "...soon became known through
his refusal as a Christian to take an oath when challenged to do so by his
fellow-soldiers. He was led to the judge, confessed, and received sentence. He
was visited in prison by the Christians, and baptized, and the next day was
beheaded. Nothing is said in the extant record as to his conversion leading him
to want to resign his post in the army."

Contrary to what the Jehovah's Witnesses are saying, the evidence shows that the
prohibition of a Christian serving in the military came centuries after Jesus'
death. There's no written record of any such prohibition in the early Church,
and the Bible itself gave examples of soldiers converting to Christianity.

[vince garcia]

Well said.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <5193F7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>>
>>
>> In 21 a.d. Tertullianus wrote: "And in
>> fact, in order that I may approach the
>> real issue of the military garland, I
>> think it has first to be investigated
>> whether military service is suitable for
>> Christians at all."

That was a typo. The year was 211 a.d.

[James]

Annointed Remnant <Annointe...@newsguy.com>

Any soldier converting to Christianity was obligated to follow Jesus'
commands. As Jesus put it at Lu 6:46,

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

And what did Jesus say?

Mt 19:19b, "...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (KJV)

Mt 5:44,"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who
persecute you," (NASB)

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

Thus to chop out the intestines of the 'enemy' was willfully
disobeying Jesus' commands, and thus would not be a genuine Christian.

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

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <h5o9p85r3iea9d0cc...@4ax.com>, James says...

There's a difference between evidence and opinion. It is your opinion that
Christians from the beginning did not become soldiers and soldiers who converted
to Christianity left the military.

However the evidence does not support your opinion. Historians use primary
sources to determine what actually happened in the past. If they allow their
beliefs and opinions to enter into their conclusions, then they cannot come to
valid conclusions.

The evidence is that Jesus made no command about Christians and military
service. There is no evidence that the few Christian soldiers mentioned in the
New Testament ever left the military.

The written record proves there were Christian soldiers from the beginning of
Christianity. It wasn't until 211 a.d. that Tertullian offered his opinion that
Christians probably should not join the military. Note that this became an
issue because there were plenty of Christians already in the military. Other
Christians argued against Tertullian expressing their opinion that it was OK for
Christians to join the military.

The Church did not actually prohibit military service for their members until
much later. So, the evidence supports the fact that Christians became soldiers
and soldiers converted to Christianity and remained soldiers for at least a
couple of centuries following Jesus' death. Then it became prohibited for some
time and then later the prohibition was removed by the Church.

So, it was OK, then not OK, then OK again. Of course today we have hundreds of
Christian sects, some of which flip flopped back again by prohibiting military
service.

>Mt 19:19b, "...Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (KJV)
>
>Mt 5:44,"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who
>persecute you," (NASB)
>
>Mt 26:52, ""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for
>all who draw the sword will die by the sword."" (NIV)
>
>Thus to chop out the intestines of the 'enemy' was willfully
>disobeying Jesus' commands, and thus would not be a genuine Christian.

It wasn't a problem for the God of the Jews which was the same God that Jesus
worshipped, which continued to be the same God that Jesus' followers worshipped.

[James]

Just think about what you are saying. Jesus said to love your
neighbors, and love your enemies, and don't use the sword. (weapons)
I can't imagaine a Christian person doing all those things and still
being a military soldier. If you think yes, then what in the world is
the meaning of Mt 19:19, and Mt 26:52 and Mt 5:44??

[vince garcia]

Then He said go sell your clothes, buy and carry one, which you always
leave out.

Therein is the fatal flaw in all your exegeses. You take half-truths and
part-verses, and ignore or redefine other verses that overturn the
theology you invent, because you will not accept the whole counsel of
scripture, but redefine it into your own image, and even rudimentary
knowledge of the Bible--and the FULL scope of history--shows the flaws
up when held to the light. This is why you get labelled a cult. Over and
over, you show me why your group deserves every bit of the bad press you
get, because the way your group approaches the Bible is really bad,
james

This is why you don't want your members reading anything but WS
materials--if they actually saw the truth, they'd see what errors
they're surrounded by

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <nt9cp8pl71t6irlj5...@4ax.com>, James says...

Actually Jesus on one occaison commended his diciples for being armed with
swords.

>I can't imagaine a Christian person
>doing all those things and still
>being a military soldier. If you think
>yes, then what in the world is the
>meaning of Mt 19:19, and Mt 26:52 and
>Mt 5:44??

Look, my friend, we can 'think' till the cows come home but history is based
upon factual evidence. The evidence is that there were plenty of Christian
soldiers in the very early Church.

The historical written evidence proves that very early Christians prayed for
Ceasar and his army and his government. It proves there were Christian soldiers.

I'm sorry that Christians didn't do what you would have liked them to do but the
unrefutable facts prove that they did.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 17, 4:35 pm, Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
wrote:
> In article <nt9cp8pl71t6irlj5s7rr7kdkkgeljo...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>In article <h5o9p85r3iea9d0ccvobq5d3pjs2qv8...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
> >>>Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>>In article <519270D6.6...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>
> >>>>>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>>>>> In article <51924FC8.7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
> >>>>>> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>>>>> >> Your situation may be similar:  Maybe the
> >>>>>> >> quoted historians were not aware of the
> >>>>>> >> archaeological finds when they made their
> >>>>>> >> statements, however for someone to use that
> >>>>>> >> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
> >>>>>> >> is being dishonest.
>
> >>>>>> >Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
> >>>>>> >own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
> >>>>>> >and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
> >>>>>> >studying the truth, rather than the word of
> >>>>>> >"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
> >>>>>> >he's aleady shown me in his posts
>
> >>>>>> From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff?
> >>>>>> Copy and paste his historical evidence here and
> >>>>>> I'll take a look at it.  The Watchtower often
> >>>>>> quotes people whom they claim are experts in
> >>>>>>their field but are not.
>
> >>>>>Here is what james posted with the conclusion:
> >>>>>"THUS THE BOTTOM LINE.  EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT
> >>>>>ENGAGE IN WARS"
>
> >>>>I came across this:
>

> >>>>http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;
for he beareth not the sword in vain:
for he is the minister of God,
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

That is why Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates says

It is lawful for Christian men,
at the commandment of the Magistrate,
to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

[James]

vince garcia <vggar...@ix.netcom.com>

Not at all, I address that Scripture from time to time. Jesus told
them to get some swords. The amount of swords was not enough to ward
off an entire mob. Jesus knew that. But Jesus wanted to show that EVEN
THOUGH THEY WERE ARMED TO AN EXTENT, that Jesus was not going to tell
them to use them. On the contrary, he said to:

""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who

draw the sword will die by the sword."" (Mt 26:52; NIV)

Hopefully you will include that next time.

>
>Therein is the fatal flaw in all your exegeses. You take half-truths and
>part-verses, and ignore or redefine other verses that overturn the
>theology you invent, because you will not accept the whole counsel of
>scripture, but redefine it into your own image, and even rudimentary
>knowledge of the Bible--and the FULL scope of history--shows the flaws
>up when held to the light. This is why you get labelled a cult. Over and
>over, you show me why your group deserves every bit of the bad press you
>get, because the way your group approaches the Bible is really bad,
>james

Your opinion is acknowledged. I stand behind the evidence of the Holy
Scriptures presented to you.

>
>This is why you don't want your members reading anything but WS
>materials--if they actually saw the truth, they'd see what errors
>they're surrounded by

We are encourged to read our literature because we fully believe it is
the truth based on the Holy Bible. But we also read many other things.
The Watchtower itself quotes many resources that are non-JW articles.
If we are supposed to only read JW literature, why would the
Watchtower Bible-aid magazine itself quote other sources, from
religions to science, materials etc.

You need to go to a better anti-JW web page. This one is misleading
you.

Or better yet, go to the JW web page to hear the teachings direct from
the source religion.

>
>
>
>
>> I can't imagaine a Christian person doing all those things and still
>> being a military soldier. If you think yes, then what in the world is
>> the meaning of Mt 19:19, and Mt 26:52 and Mt 5:44??

No explanation? They must mean something if not being against a
Christian going to war.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

James, I gave you the Scripture
Ro 13:4 -

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

Thus Article XXXVII: Of the Civil Magistrates of the Articles
of Religion state

It is lawful for Christian men,
at the commandment of the Magistrate,
to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

http://www.victorianweb.org/victorian/religion/39articles.html

Romans 13:4 is a clear Biblical mandate for a Christian
to carry arms for a legitimate ruler. Are you saying no
policemen can be a Christian, since they carry arms?
You have shown none that say a Christian can't bare
arms. Be a man, and admit you are wrong.


Luke 13:3

I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent,
ye shall all likewise perish.

[vince garcia]

Not just "them"

That message is to all believers.

And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and
shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

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.

I assume you believe that message is to all believers as well. Or do you
go out without a purse, trusting Christ to meet all your needs?

Of course you don't. You carry a wallet and money because you know darn
well you need them to survive with, because God is NOT going to
miraculously going to meet your needs by your living with no wallet and
only one set of clothing unless somehow, on an individual basis, He
called you to go out and do that.

Likewise, in a dangerous world, we don't presume upon God's
automatically protecting us from harm; we do what we reasonably can to
protect ourselves AS CHRIST COMMANDED.

Only a hypocrite would teache it's allowable to have more than one set
of clothes and carry a wallet and money, based on this verse to cancel
Mark 6:9, then go on to teach it's wrong to carry some sort of weapon
for protection if circumstances call for one.

The amount of swords was not enough to ward
> off an entire mob. Jesus knew that. But Jesus wanted to show that EVEN
> THOUGH THEY WERE ARMED TO AN EXTENT, that Jesus was not going to tell
> them to use them. On the contrary, he said to:
>
> ""Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who
> draw the sword will die by the sword."" (Mt 26:52; NIV)

DRAW is a bad translation; it makes it look like to even use a sword in
self-defense will cause you die by the sword, when the clear context is
to "live by the sowrd"

I see why you cherry-picked the translation. You do that a
lot--cherry-pick a translation that fits your agenda the best.

STOP THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just pick one version, and stick to it 90% of the time instead of
quoting a different version every time you want to make a specific
point. It is obnoxious.

Now...

Was it necessary for him to use the sword given that Christ was present?


No.

Now what if Christ WAS NOT present, and an armed band was about to
attack the disciples? Would it have been necessary to use a sword in
self defense? YES!

Allowable? Yes!

he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Go rebuke Jesus for saying that if you don't like His words and their
CLEAR implication; or else at least be sincere and stop carrying a
wallet and money, and trust God to meet your needs if you will live by
scripture, and NOT believe in carrying a sword. But if you will accept
THIS portion of it where you are now allowed to carry a purse and money,
then acknowledge and admit you may carry and use a sword as well

>
> Hopefully you will include that next time.
>
> >
> >Therein is the fatal flaw in all your exegeses. You take half-truths and
> >part-verses, and ignore or redefine other verses that overturn the
> >theology you invent, because you will not accept the whole counsel of
> >scripture, but redefine it into your own image, and even rudimentary
> >knowledge of the Bible--and the FULL scope of history--shows the flaws
> >up when held to the light. This is why you get labelled a cult. Over and
> >over, you show me why your group deserves every bit of the bad press you
> >get, because the way your group approaches the Bible is really bad,
> >james
>
> Your opinion is acknowledged. I stand behind the evidence of the Holy
> Scriptures presented to you.

That sounds good. But what we have tried to get you to see, which you
cannot, is that you stand really behind:

Isegesis.
Utterly incompetent scholarship and bad translations.
Repeated false prophecy by incompetent bible teachers who believe they
alone have the right to interpret scripture.

>
> >
> >This is why you don't want your members reading anything but WS
> >materials--if they actually saw the truth, they'd see what errors
> >they're surrounded by
>
> We are encourged to read our literature because we fully believe it is
> the truth based on the Holy Bible.
But we also read many other things.

Are you encouraged to read anti-JW literature and judge for yourself
whether the teaching of the WS stand up to scrutiny?


cudos if so.

> The Watchtower itself quotes many resources that are non-JW articles.
> If we are supposed to only read JW literature, why would the
> Watchtower Bible-aid magazine itself quote other sources, from
> religions to science, materials etc.

But are those materials somehow in harmony with your teachings? In other
words, do you cherry-pick?

I've been reading your recommended anti-orthodox Christian sources about
pacifism, and they collapsed as soon as they were scrutinized by both
the bible and history.

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 18, 3:10 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

"he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. "

Luke 22:36

Vince, do you really think James follows Scripture?
He follows not Scripture, but what the Columbia heights
cult tells him to believe. He isn't man enough to admit
he has been deceived.


Mark 4:12
That seeing they may see, and not perceive;
and hearing they may hear, and not understand
lest at any time they should be converted,
and their sins should be forgiven them.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Jim wrote in message news:

On May 18, 3:10 pm, vince garcia wrote:
>>"he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. "
>>Luke 22:36

>Mark 4:12
>That seeing they may see, and not perceive;
> and hearing they may hear, and not understand
> lest at any time they should be converted,
>and their sins should be forgiven them.

"Then saith Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into its place: for all
they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."Matt 26:52 (ASV)

"27 But I say unto you that hear, Love your enemies, do good to them that
hate you"
Luke 6:27 (ASV)

Jeff...

[vince garcia]

But if they mean to harm you in response...

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__.

[vince garcia]

jwshe...@satx.rr.com wrote:
>
> On May 18, 3:10 pm, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> "he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. "
>
> Luke 22:36
>
> Vince, do you really think James follows Scripture?

He follows it as the deceived do: through the eyes of deception. That's
why he has a different Christ and a different way of salvation than
orthodox Christianity does.

Arguments about soul sleep and serving in the military aren't even
aessentials about the faith--they are only secondary issues that pale in
consideration of main issues like the nature of Christ and the way of
salvation.

I've said it before--the second any group says it alone is teaching the
true way of salvation over the rest of the body of Christ, that is proof
positive it is teaching deception and walking in darkness.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197F4...@ix.netcom.com...

Brother

As a follower of Christ you may not

1) Swear an oath

So how can you join the military where you must do so in order to join?

2) You must love your enemies

So how can you kill someone you love?

3) You must do good to all men

How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?

But can we look at the verse you quoted?

Here is the verse, in context so that it can be easily understood

35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and

shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

36 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.
39 And he came out, and went, as he was wont, to the mount of Olives; and
his disciples also followed him.
40 And when he was at the place, he said unto them, Pray that ye enter not
into temptation.
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down,
and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless
not my will, but thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it
were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
45 And when he rose up from prayer, and was come to his disciples, he found
them sleeping for sorrow,
46 And said unto them, Why sleep ye? rise and pray, lest ye enter into
temptation.
47 And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas,
one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near unto Jesus to kiss him.
48 But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a
kiss?
49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him,
Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his
right ear.
51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear,
and healed him.

1) Jesus says "but now" which always marks a change in instruction
2) Jesus said that the two swords the disciples had were enough
3) The disciples thought Jesus wanted them to use the swords to fight
4) Jesus undid the violent act that the sword was used for

This text follows those events (from Matthew's gospel)

52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all

they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently
give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

So why did Jesus say to take the swords? The answer is so that he could heal
the servant of the high priest, he could deliver the instruction to not use
force and he could also show that although he was able to resist (there were
at least 12 of them and they had weapons) he did not resist evil just as he
instructed us.

If you are interested in the military you should be aware that good soldiers
follow the last order til advised differently. The last order is not to use
violence.

regards

Phil

[vince garcia]

You can ask that question of john, who told soldiers to stay in the
military, and two centurions who were NOT told to leave the military,
but were accepted while IN it.

Your doctrine is YOUR oral tradition. It is not the Bible's
commandments.

And for the recoird, anytime a person tries to force his doctrine on
someomne by using arguments like, "how can you be doing someone good
by..." and then inserting his own oral tradition and his own doctrine,
that person is a manipulator

Your thinking and contrived doctrine do not stand up to scrutiny based
on the WHOLE consel of God. sorry

That command to carry a purse and sword is to ALL BELIEVERS, not to the
apostles on one night in the garden.

Pacifism is not taught in Scripture. That is false doctrine.

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:


I wamnt to get into these

> Brother
>
> As a follower of Christ you may not
>
> 1) Swear an oath

Right there, you show you don't understand the Bible.


Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou
shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is
God's throne:
35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for
it is the city of the great King.
36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
hair white or black.
37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
more than these cometh of evil.



In DIRECT context, this is talking about invoking God as a judge
regarding an oath made TO God as is James 5:12, which repeats the "yea
yea/nay nay" part, affirming the original DIRECT comtext.



Has nothing to do with taking an oath to uphold the constitution.

What you have done is take your own opinion, impose that oopinion as the
absolute meaning of the passage, present that opinion to me as the
"real" truth of the passage, and demand I accept YOUR opinion as the
truth.

Guess what? I'm not impressed with your opinion, and your statement "As

a follower of Christ you may not 1) Swear an oath"

You clearly didn't read the passage clear enough to note the direct
context, but expanded the direct context into legalism, to the point
where a Christian based on YOUR opinion can't serve in the military (nor
presumably serve on a jury, hold a government office, and so on) because
they must make an oath to uphold the constution which in your exalted
opinion they can't do, ergo they can't do any of these things

misguided fellow

>
> So how can you join the military where you must do so in order to join?
>
> 2) You must love your enemies

Love doesn't mean let them kill you and not defend yourself

>
> So how can you kill someone you love?

A criminal kicks open the door and approaches your wife with a knife.
He's going to cut her throat in 5 seconds what do you do?

"Uh, I start to pray, and--"


Ok, she's now dead, and he's cut the phone line. Now he's heading over
to rape your daughter. What do you do?

>
> 3) You must do good to all men
>
> How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?

He's now done with your daughter, and going to cut her throat. What do
you do?

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

"vince garcia" to philip.saunders wrote in message

>You clearly didn't read the passage clear enough to note the direct
>context, but expanded the direct context into legalism, to the point
>where a Christian based on YOUR opinion can't serve in the military (nor
>presumably serve on a jury, hold a government office, and so on) because
>they must make an oath to uphold the constution which in your exalted
>opinion they can't do, ergo they can't do any of these things

Correct Vince.
"4 No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life;
that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
5 And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he
strive lawfully"
2 Tim 2:4-5 (KJV)

>misguided fellow

LOL!

>> So how can you join the military where you must do so in order to join?
>>
>> 2) You must love your enemies

> Love doesn't mean let them kill you and not defend yourself

Oh! but it does, Vince.
"36 Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We
were accounted as sheep for the slaughter."
Romans 8:36 (ASV)

>> So how can you kill someone you love?

>A criminal kicks open the door and approaches your wife with a knife.
>He's going to cut her throat in 5 seconds what do you do?

Pray to retain your faith and composure and reason with him, or if that
fails....."Father, forgive them....."

>"Uh, I start to pray, and--"

Yes! complete success in obeying Christ.
"25 For anyone who keeps his life for himself shall lose it; and anyone who
loses his life for me shall find it again. 26 What profit is there if you
gain the whole world—and lose eternal life? What can be compared with the
value of eternal life?
Matt 16:25-26 (TLB)
Amen!

> Ok, she's now dead, and he's cut the phone line. Now he's heading over
> to rape your daughter. What do you do?

Have you forgotten that God has promised never to tempt the faithful beyond
what they can bear?
"13 There isn't any temptation that you have experienced which is unusual
for humans. God, who faithfully keeps his promises, will not allow you to be
tempted beyond your power to resist. But when you are tempted, he will also
give you the ability to endure the temptation as your way of escape. "
1 Cor 10:13 (GW)
AMEN!

>> 3) You must do good to all men
>>
>> How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?

>He's now done with your daughter, and going to cut her throat. What do
>you do?

Think of Christ and be prepared to die......

"For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for
the slaughter."

......and then LIVE again for evermore!!!

"Anyone who loses his life for me shall find it again"

AMEN!

Jeff...

[vince garcia]

Because you took it upon yourself to add in aother newsgroup to the
original headers (apparently you like to hear yourself talk, and want
everyone to hear your words of wisdom because of your ego), my original
response seems not to have posted because of that last NG you added.

I do not consider you worth my precious time to rewrite it for YOUR
being the cause of that.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197FD...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197F4...@ix.netcom.com...
>> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:

>> >> Jim wrote in message news:

snip

>> Brother
>>
>> As a follower of Christ you may not

>> 1) Swear an oath

>> So how can you join the military where you must do so in order to join?

>> 2) You must love your enemies

>> So how can you kill someone you love?

>> 3) You must do good to all men

>> How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?

> You can ask that question of john, who told soldiers to stay in the
> military, and two centurions who were NOT told to leave the military,
> but were accepted while IN it.

If you can provide one instance of somebody being told to join the military
then please do so.
If you can provide one example of somebody being told to stay in the
military then please do so.

You can do neither because neither Jesus nor any Christian NT writer said
any such thing.

> Your doctrine is YOUR oral tradition. It is not the Bible's commandments.

No, my doctrine is directly from the words of Jesus. It was Jesus who told
is not to swear oaths, it was Jesus who told us not to resist evil and it
was Jesus who told us to love our enemies.

> And for the recoird, anytime a person tries to force his doctrine on
> someomne by using arguments like, "how can you be doing someone good
> by..." and then inserting his own oral tradition and his own doctrine,
> that person is a manipulator

Well, and for the record, Paul said "Do good unto all men, especially those
of the household of faith" so I am, as usual, quoting scripture and you are
not liking it.

>> But can we look at the verse you quoted?

>> Here is the verse, in context so that it can be easily understood

snipped quoted text from Luke

>> 1) Jesus says "but now" which always marks a change in instruction
>> 2) Jesus said that the two swords the disciples had were enough
>> 3) The disciples thought Jesus wanted them to use the swords to fight
>> 4) Jesus undid the violent act that the sword was used for

>> This text follows those events (from Matthew's gospel)

>> 52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for
>> all
>> they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
>> 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall
>> presently
>> give me more than twelve legions of angels?
>> 54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

>> so why did Jesus say to take the swords? The answer is so that he could

>> heal
>> the servant of the high priest, he could deliver the instruction to not
>> use
>> force and he could also show that although he was able to resist (there
>> were
>> at least 12 of them and they had weapons) he did not resist evil just as
>> he
>> instructed us.

>> If you are interested in the military you should be aware that good
>> soldiers
>> follow the last order til advised differently. The last order is not to
>> use
>> violence.

>> regards

>> Phil

> Your thinking and contrived doctrine do not stand up to scrutiny based
> on the WHOLE consel of God. sorry

I have only quoted scripture, you don't seem to like that.

> That command to carry a purse and sword is to ALL BELIEVERS, not to the
> apostles on one night in the garden.

If it was then two swords is enough for the total of all believers and you
don't believe that do you? If it was then so is the verse to not use the
sword, but you don't believe that either do you?

> Pacifism is not taught in Scripture. That is false doctrine.

I tell you not to resist evil, turn the other cheek, do good to those that
hate you and despitefully use you, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive
those that trespass against us, love your enemies, the Prince of Peace.

It seems that while I can quote scripture you can only quote yourself and
your opinions. The early Christians were non violent, the early Christians
would not join the military, the early Christians were gentle, loving and
when persecuted they went silently to the slaughter just like Jesus.

regards

Phil

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197FD...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197F4...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>
> >> >> Jim wrote in message news:
>
> snip
>
> >> Brother
> >>
> >> As a follower of Christ you may not
>
> >> 1) Swear an oath
>
> >> So how can you join the military where you must do so in order to join?
>
> >> 2) You must love your enemies
>
> >> So how can you kill someone you love?
>
> >> 3) You must do good to all men
>
> >> How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?
>
> > You can ask that question of john, who told soldiers to stay in the
> > military, and two centurions who were NOT told to leave the military,
> > but were accepted while IN it.
>
> If you can provide one instance of somebody being told to join the military
> then please do so.

I don't have to fo that. YOU have to prove one must LEAVE it, and the NT
has shown COMCLUSIVELY that men were told to STAY IN

> If you can provide one example of somebody being told to stay in the
> military then please do so.

read the gospels. I won't do your homework for you, and i pointed it out
in an earlier thread

>
> You can do neither because neither Jesus nor any Christian NT writer

The NT is not limited, as you would like it to be, to Jesus and "nt
writers" JTB, about whose minsitry Jesus had no complaints, no rebuke,
no denials, and no reopudition of, also counts.

For it not to count, YOU must show explicit and specific denunciation
repudiation and retraction of his teachings on the part of Christ, not
your doctrine on what Christ "really" meant.

Then you must show clear and explicit examples where soldiers who were
converted were ordered to leave the military were or left it on their
own upon conversion

Show me where Jesus called upon the cebnturian to leave the military

Show me where Cornelius was called upon by peter to leave the military

Have at it. YOUR opinions, misquoting of verses, and arguments from
silence mean nothing to me

[James]

Then we have some differences. Notice:

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

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

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

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

Luke 3:14

That is correct. But Jesus at times did not tell people directly what
they should do, he used
illustrations (parables) as well as direct statements. Notice the
account of Jesus speaking to the
immoral Samaritan woman at the well. At John 4:16-26 Jesus told her
that the man she was living
with was not her husband. Yet he did not tell her to stop living with
the man, or to get married. Are
we to conclude from this that Jesus was approving of fornication or
adultry? Of course not, we
therefore have to look for other scriptures that Jesus SAID to see if
they answer our questions.
Such clear statements as Mt 26:52 show Jesus view of people going to
war.

>
> In Luke 7:28, Jesus said of John the Baptist no greater born of woman .
> In Luke 3:10-14 John the Baptist spoke to tax collectors, soldiers and the
> crowd. He told to do right but did not tell them to change jobs.

Again we have a "what he didn't say" situation. That in itself does
not set doctrine or show the
belief on that subject of the speaker. (See Jesus statement above to
the Samaritan woman) The
scriptures that DO talk about this subject are very clear as to a
Christian going to war. As I
probably mentioned before, the Apostle Paul talked about this subject
at 2 Cor 10:3,4. He left little
doubt as to a Christian's participation of carnal warfare.

Even early secular writers close to the time of Christ, wrote about
Christians and their view of
military service. Professor Hardy in his book "Christianity and the
Roman Government" comments
on the 2nd century writer Tertullian. He said Tertullian mentioned
many things which Christians
would not do: such as idolatry, any pagan religion rituals, holding
public office, and doing military
service.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519803...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:


>I wamnt to get into these

>> Brother

>> As a follower of Christ you may not

>> 1) Swear an oath

> Right there, you show you don't understand the Bible.

OK brother then show me, from the bible, that you may swear oaths.

> Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou
> shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
> 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is
> God's throne:
> 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for
> it is the city of the great King.
> 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one
> hair white or black.
> 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is
> more than these cometh of evil.

Part of a great discourse :-)

> In DIRECT context, this is talking about invoking God as a judge
> regarding an oath made TO God as is James 5:12, which repeats the "yea
> yea/nay nay" part, affirming the original DIRECT comtext.

So Jesus tells them that the Old Covenant forbid the swearing of oaths
except unto the Lord. Jesus tells them that they may not even swear oaths in
that way because to uphold the oath is beyond their power and therefore the
promise is a sin.

So let us look at the "oath" to uphold the constitution. Do you swear by a
power or thing that you do not control to offer support to something or
someone other than God? This was forbidden in the OT and extended under
Christ to mean that you may not invoke the name of anything in heaven or on
earth.

> Has nothing to do with taking an oath to uphold the constitution.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and
that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which
I am about to enter. So help me God

That is the oath the military take in the USA. It is an oath to murder
under order and it is in the name of God.

> What you have done is take your own opinion, impose that oopinion as the
> absolute meaning of the passage, present that opinion to me as the
> "real" truth of the passage, and demand I accept YOUR opinion as the
> truth.

No, I have told you what the text says and to what it refers. Your opinion
is that it does not mean what it says, yet you have given no good reason as
to why I should accept what you say.

> Guess what? I'm not impressed with your opinion, and your statement "As
> a follower of Christ you may not 1) Swear an oath"

You may do as you please then, it is not my place to save you from your
stubborn opinion. The early Christians used the scriptures and had the
Apostles. They shunned violence and oath taking.

> You clearly didn't read the passage clear enough to note the direct
> context, but expanded the direct context into legalism, to the point
> where a Christian based on YOUR opinion can't serve in the military (nor
> presumably serve on a jury, hold a government office, and so on) because
> they must make an oath to uphold the constution which in your exalted
> opinion they can't do, ergo they can't do any of these things

No they may not do any of those things.

> misguided fellow

Yes you are, but such is also true of almost all Americans so you are not
alone.

>> So how can you join the military where you must do so in order to join?

>> 2) You must love your enemies

> Love doesn't mean let them kill you and not defend yourself

Jesus said not to resist evil and to give good for evil so it does indeed
mean that.

>> So how can you kill someone you love?

> A criminal kicks open the door and approaches your wife with a knife.
> He's going to cut her throat in 5 seconds what do you do?
>"Uh, I start to pray, and--"
>Ok, she's now dead, and he's cut the phone line. Now he's heading over
> to rape your daughter. What do you do?

Those things happen because like you these people who think that violence is
ok. They do not trust God nor do they accept any hardship or suffering
without repaying evil for evil.

I am sure you would kill them in an instant, and in doing so you would be
killing Christ.

>> 3) You must do good to all men

>> How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?

> He's now done with your daughter, and going to cut her throat. What do
> you do?

Prepare to see them in glory, whereas you would be preparing to see the
criminal again in hell.

If the cost of following Christ is too high then follow the world, but the
price is even higher!

regards

Phil

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519803...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >I wamnt to get into these
>
> >> Brother
>
> >> As a follower of Christ you may not
>
> >> 1) Swear an oath
>
> > Right there, you show you don't understand the Bible.
>
> OK brother then show me, from the bible, that you may swear oaths.

For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to
them an end of all strife.

There you go again, you snake.

You have the tongue of the serpent.

REAL Christians, not your abberant sort, do not allow people like you to
define "murder" for us.

It is not "murder" to execute a serial killer, for instance.

It is not "murder" to fight the nazis

Parasites like you make sick. you exist only because REAL Christians
were willing to fight and die to keep the freedom parasites like you get
to live under

> under order and it is in the name of God.
>
> > What you have done is take your own opinion, impose that oopinion as the
> > absolute meaning of the passage, present that opinion to me as the
> > "real" truth of the passage, and demand I accept YOUR opinion as the
> > truth.
>
> No, I have told you what the text says and to what it refers. Your opinion
> is that it does not mean what it says, yet you have given no good reason as
> to why I should accept what you say.

As I tell other false teachers, it is never you vs me. It is always you
vs Christian orthodoxy.

Now let me ask you something. Do you own a house or car? If the answer
is yes, how can you call yourself a Christian if you have not sold them
to do good by feeding the poor?

Remember what Jesus said:

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

Have you obeyed that comamndment?

Absolutely.

and in doing so you would be
> killing Christ.

Killing Charles Ng and Leonard Lake as they came through the door to
kidnap their 4th or 5th young lady to drag down to their torture dungeon
would not be killing Christ, but that shows how totally despicable and
sick your line of thinking is. You'd rather they go on killing woman
after woman than for you to have stopped them yourself if you had the
chance because it wouldn't be "loving" for you to kill them

Better for them to kill you, torture your wife, then go on to someone
else's wife and turtuyre HER to death.

You sick parasite

>
> >> 3) You must do good to all men
>
> >> How can killing a man's son or making a woman a widow be doing them good?
>
> > He's now done with your daughter, and going to cut her throat. What do
> > you do?
>
> Prepare to see them in glory, whereas you would be preparing to see the
> criminal again in hell.

assuming you're a jw like your brother james, the only glory you'll see
will be in hell with him--that's after he gfoes on to kill other people
because a pacifist parasite like you did nothing, and let him go on
killing because you want to "do good" by standing idle and letting him
kill you to go on to the next victims.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <1hlhp8pmv7l2m0q61...@4ax.com>, James says...

This is not evidence; it is the opinion of whomever wrote the article. You need
to learn what evidence is. It is not speculation or opinion. Furthermore you
don't offer who the author is.

>Roland Bainton notes that 'from the end of the
>New Testament period to the decade A.D. 170-180
>there is no evidence whatever of Christians in
>the army.' . . .

Technically that's true, but when we do see written evidence, Christians are
already established in the military by 170-180. There's no evidence to prove
that they were not there all along. Silence is not evidence.

So what we have is evidence of Christian soldiers during the New Testament
period and evidence of Christian soldiers prior to 170-180 a.d., but exactly how
much prior, the evidence is silent.

>Only gradually did Christians abandon their
>opposition to military service . . .

This is opinion and speculation. It is not based upon actual evidence. I can
find you historians who are as equally as qualified as this Quaker who totally
disagree, but neither is that evidence.

>Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as authorizing
>Christians' participation in military activities,
>'just war' soon became whatever war their
>government engaged in."

Which has nothing to do with early Christians.

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

Earnest William Barnes was never an historian and his book was regarded as
nonsense by actual historians. He was a mathematician who became a bishop. He
also believed in and taught eugenics. Do you believe in that too?

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

Where is his evidence? This is evidence:

"(We are) all (of us) always praying for all emperors, that their life may be
prolonged, (their) rule secure, (their) household (kept) in safety, (their)
armies strong, the senate faithful, the people upright, the world quiet, and
whatever (else his) wishes are (as) man and (as) Caesar."

This was written by Tertullian. As you see, the actual written evidence starkly
disagrees with Phillip Schaff's opinion. Learn to know the difference between
physical evidence and opinion.

>But Jesus at times did not tell people directly
>what they should do, he used illustrations
>(parables) as well as direct statements.

I am discussing historical factual evidence - not theology.

I deleted the rest of the post because you are replying to someone else.

So far you have supplied absolutely no evidence to support your view. Every bit
of the evidence that I have presented supports the fact that there were early
Christian soldiers. The few historians who disagree are pacifists who are
trying to alter history by presenting their own personal beliefs as fact. If
you go back to original source documents, you must come to the conclusion that
there were early Christian soldiers.

[curtjester1]

On May 19, 9:42 am, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
>

> >In article <nt9cp8pl71t6irlj5s7rr7kdkkgeljo...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
> >>Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>In article <h5o9p85r3iea9d0ccvobq5d3pjs2qv8...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
> >>>>Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>>>In article <519270D6.6...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>
> >>>>>>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> In article <51924FC8.7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
> >>>>>>> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> >> Your situation may be similar:  Maybe the
> >>>>>>> >> quoted historians were not aware of the
> >>>>>>> >> archaeological finds when they made their
> >>>>>>> >> statements, however for someone to use that
> >>>>>>> >> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
> >>>>>>> >> is being dishonest.
>
> >>>>>>> >Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
> >>>>>>> >own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
> >>>>>>> >and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
> >>>>>>> >studying the truth, rather than the word of
> >>>>>>> >"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
> >>>>>>> >he's aleady shown me in his posts
>
> >>>>>>> From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff?
> >>>>>>> Copy and paste his historical evidence here and
> >>>>>>> I'll take a look at it.  The Watchtower often
> >>>>>>> quotes people whom they claim are experts in
> >>>>>>>their field but are not.
>
> >>>>>>Here is what james posted with the conclusion:
> >>>>>>"THUS THE BOTTOM LINE.  EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT
> >>>>>>ENGAGE IN WARS"
>
> >>>>>I came across this:
>

> >>>>>http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...

Jesus was very direct when he said to "love ones enemies" and "those
taking of the sword will die by the sword."

CJ

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198CA...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197FD...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> >> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197F4...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
>
> >> >> Jim wrote in message news:

snip

>> If you can provide one instance of somebody being told to join the
>> military
>> then please do so.

> I don't have to fo that. YOU have to prove one must LEAVE it, and the NT
> has shown COMCLUSIVELY that men were told to STAY IN

No, the NT does not say any such thing. John the Baptist (not a Christian)
told a soldier that he should be non violent and not grumble about pay. Now
you conclude that this means that it is ok to take oaths

1) This man wasn't about to take an oath, he had already taken it so telling
him to leave or not would not have prevented that
2) Any soldier who refuses to be violent won't be in the army long
3) This was before the teaching of Christ

>> If you can provide one example of somebody being told to stay in the
>> military then please do so.

> read the gospels. I won't do your homework for you, and i pointed it out
> in an earlier thread

There are no examples of anyone being told to join the military in the NT.
If you say there are then either

1) You are unaware of that and thus teaching error

or

2) Being deliberately dishonest

>> You can do neither because neither Jesus nor any Christian NT writer

> The NT is not limited, as you would like it to be, to Jesus and "nt
> writers" JTB, about whose minsitry Jesus had no complaints, no rebuke,
> no denials, and no reopudition of, also counts.

John the Baptist was not a Christian, so what he taught and preached was for
Jews and under Jewish Law an army could be a legitimate thing. Jesus brought
in a New Covenant and told people that things had changed. The sermon on the
mount is very clear on this point.

> For it not to count, YOU must show explicit and specific denunciation
> repudiation and retraction of his teachings on the part of Christ, not
> your doctrine on what Christ "really" meant.

But I have shown you that Christ clearly forbade oaths and violence. Not
secret meanings but clear and obvious meanings, meanings which the hearers
understood and which early Christians acted upon.

> Then you must show clear and explicit examples where soldiers who were
> converted were ordered to leave the military were or left it on their
> own upon conversion

I need no show that since you cannot show one Christian who was in the
military or indeed one who ever was according to the NT. This despite Paul
writing to gentiles, in the main, and yet not one mention of any Christian
in the military service.

> Show me where Jesus called upon the cebnturian to leave the military

Why? Was the Centurion a Christian? No. There was no Christianity to follow
since the Christian era did not start until after the death of Christ.

> Show me where Cornelius was called upon by peter to leave the military

Cornelius was converted, he is never mentioned again so I have no way of
knowing what happened to him and neither do you.

> Have at it. YOUR opinions, misquoting of verses, and arguments from
> silence mean nothing to me

But it is you who are using arguments from silence. Because it does not say
(the argument from silence) x therefore x did not happen.

I am using clear scripture, Matthew 5 is crystal clear

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill;
and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say,
Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou

shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:

34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all: ....

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth:
39 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.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy.
44 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;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the
publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not
even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.

You wish to overthrow these words of Christ based upon an argument from
silence (that which was not said).

I am using the argument from what was said and concluding that Christ meant
what He said.

regards

Phil

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

snip

>> OK brother then show me, from the bible, that you may swear oaths.

> For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to
> them an end of all strife.

And where does it say that we should do that?

In fact Jesus has said that we should not.

Again you are arguing from silence.

snip

>> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
>> the
>> Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
>> domestic;
>> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
>> obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
>> and
>> that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
>> which
>> I am about to enter. So help me God

>> That is the oath the military take in the USA. It is an oath to murder

> There you go again, you snake.

> You have the tongue of the serpent.

> REAL Christians, not your abberant sort, do not allow people like you to
> define "murder" for us.

> It is not "murder" to execute a serial killer, for instance.

> It is not "murder" to fight the nazis

> Parasites like you make sick. you exist only because REAL Christians
> were willing to fight and die to keep the freedom parasites like you get
> to live under

Brother you have now done what Jesus said puts you in danger of judgement. I
forgive you but you should repent of calling me those names.

The only person that died for me was Jesus Christ and he did not fight the
Nazis, nor any other earthly enemy because our fight is not with earthly
powers.

In WWII for instance 70 million people died, most were civilians who were
bombed, shelled and killed in the crossfire. The soldiers who were shelling
and bombing innocent civilians knew that there were innocent civilians there
and they would be killed. Is that not murder? How can bombing women and
children not be murder friend? We even bombed France where the population
were our allies! Was it not murder when we bombed factories where we knew
the workers were Jews who were forced to work there on pain of torture and
death?

snip

>> No, I have told you what the text says and to what it refers. Your
>> opinion
>> is that it does not mean what it says, yet you have given no good reason
>> as
>> to why I should accept what you say.

> As I tell other false teachers, it is never you vs me. It is always you
> vs Christian orthodoxy.

You may rely on orthodoxy and the orthodox churches if you wish. I will have
no other foundation than Christ Jesus and the scriptures will be all I build
with.

Until the Protestants arrived it was orthodox to sell indulgences to murder.
It is orthodox to forbid marriage to priests, it was orthodox churches that
butchered tens of thousands of Christians because they didn't like their
doctrines on what day of the year to celebrate Easter!

> Now let me ask you something. Do you own a house or car? If the answer
> is yes, how can you call yourself a Christian if you have not sold them
> to do good by feeding the poor?

I do not own a house and I have an 11 year old car that is needed for me to
get to work. I have no money in the bank nor shares nor personal wealth.

> Remember what Jesus said:

> If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
> poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

> Have you obeyed that comamndment?

This is not a commandment but I shall tell you how seriously I take the
words of Christ.

I was homeless, had not eaten for 2 days and had one pound as my whole
worldly wealth. A beggar asked me for money and so I gave him the pound.

I have gone hungry, slept rough, been falsely imprisoned, been persecuted,
reviled and condemned yet I have followed after Christ. Recently I have had
an epiphany
and God has again spoken to me about the full gospel of Jesus Christ, as
expounded by Jesus Himself.

Now I have a question for you.

Now that you find that I have indeed walked the walk and that I still talk
the talk what will you do?

You threw it out there as a challenge well what have you done?

So far you have insulted and reviled me simply for quoting the words of
Jesus and believing them.

I forgive you, in all sincerity I wish only your good and I say these things
only so that the gospel may reach in to your heart and make you see that to
follow the Prince of Peace cannot be to go to war with your fellow man.

snip

> Killing Charles Ng and Leonard Lake as they came through the door to
> kidnap their 4th or 5th young lady to drag down to their torture dungeon
> would not be killing Christ, but that shows how totally despicable and
> sick your line of thinking is. You'd rather they go on killing woman
> after woman than for you to have stopped them yourself if you had the
> chance because it wouldn't be "loving" for you to kill them

I would rather preach the gospel because it is the power of God to save even
such men. It saved the worst of all sinners, men who murdered Christians
were saved by the gospel and the love of Christians.

> Better for them to kill you, torture your wife, then go on to someone
> else's wife and turtuyre HER to death.

> You sick parasite

Once again I forgive you.

snip

> assuming you're a jw like your brother james, the only glory you'll see
> will be in hell with him--that's after he gfoes on to kill other people
> because a pacifist parasite like you did nothing, and let him go on
> killing because you want to "do good" by standing idle and letting him
> kill you to go on to the next victims.

I am not a Jehovah's Witness, I am a Christian.

The orthodox view that you support was the one which agreed with mass
slavery in the good ole USA. The Quakers and other non conformists were the
ones who spoke against it.

People who hold your views went to war to protect their Christian right to
own their brothers and to treat them any way they liked. To allow the rape
and murder and torture of their brothers these orthodox men went to war.

They called those who refused to fight lots of names and they killed quite a
few, both black and white, for merely saying that they were wrong.

I respectfully refer you to the words of Jesus Christ that you should love
your enemies.

regards

Phil

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <Xdamt.1905$u_4....@newsfe09.iad>, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
says...

>
>
>
>In WWII for instance 70 million people died, most were civilians who were
>bombed, shelled and killed in the crossfire. The soldiers who were shelling
>and bombing innocent civilians knew that there were innocent civilians there
>and they would be killed. Is that not murder? How can bombing women and
>children not be murder friend? We even bombed France where the population
>were our allies! Was it not murder when we bombed factories where we knew
>the workers were Jews who were forced to work there on pain of torture and
>death?

You haven't reached puberty yet, have you, son? No, I get it; you're a 33 year
old virgin Jehovah's Witness!

Hey, are you 'privileged' enough to handle the microphones? Don't work at the
literature counter, my friend... You might get a paper cut on those Watchtowers
and bleed to death...

Are you home schooled, son, or did your mommy and daddy let you get all the way
to public high school? If you did, from then on you'll live in blissful
ignorance being 'educated' by the Watchtower.

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> OK brother then show me, from the bible, that you may swear oaths.
>
> > For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to
> > them an end of all strife.
>
> And where does it say that we should do that?
>
> In fact Jesus has said that we should not.
>
> Again you are arguing from silence.

A verse is not an argumemnt from silence, you twit

Inept people like youbare the ones who argue from silence when they say
opeople like cornelius MUST have resigned from the military.

twit

.


>
> snip
>
> >> I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend
> >> the
> >> Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
> >> domestic;
> >> that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
> >> obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion;
> >> and
> >> that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
> >> which
> >> I am about to enter. So help me God
>
> >> That is the oath the military take in the USA. It is an oath to murder
>
> > There you go again, you snake.
>
> > You have the tongue of the serpent.
>
> > REAL Christians, not your abberant sort, do not allow people like you to
> > define "murder" for us.
>
> > It is not "murder" to execute a serial killer, for instance.
>
> > It is not "murder" to fight the nazis
>
> > Parasites like you make sick. you exist only because REAL Christians
> > were willing to fight and die to keep the freedom parasites like you get
> > to live under
>
> Brother you have now done what Jesus said puts you in danger of judgement. I
> forgive you but you should repent of calling me those names.

You're lucky I don't call you worse.

>
> The only person that died for me was Jesus Christ and he did not fight the
> Nazis, nor any other earthly enemy because our fight is not with earthly
> powers.
>
> In WWII for instance 70 million people died, most were civilians who were
> bombed, shelled and killed in the crossfire. The soldiers who were shelling
> and bombing innocent civilians knew that there were innocent civilians there
> and they would be killed. Is that not murder? How can bombing women and
> children not be murder friend?

Because an infinite number more would have died under the nazis whom you
would have exterminate all subhuman races unopposed

so? You can give your body to be burnt and wind up in hell. JWs have
died for their faith and wound up in hell. So?

I'm not impressed one bit with your past sacrifcices. I know nothing of
your salvation theology. I know only you have a pharisaic, unbalanced
pacifistic doictrine that is biblical only to the ecxtent that it takes
verses and applies an impractical, legalitsic standard to them that is
not borne out by the whole counsel of God nor by the orthdox view of he
majority of Christinanity. That doesn't equate to salvation at all

And FYI, orthodoxy, not the views of spliter groups and cults, is what
the faith must abide by. I'm sick and tired of people like coming here
to denoubnce the views of orthdoxy and upholding the sick views of their
splinter groups as the "real" groups.

You JWs, Armstrongites, Messianics, LDS, and what have you, can burn
with the "truth" of your cults.

>
> I have gone hungry, slept rough, been falsely imprisoned, been persecuted,
> reviled and condemned yet I have followed after Christ. Recently I have had
> an epiphany
> and God has again spoken to me about the full gospel of Jesus Christ, as
> expounded by Jesus Himself.

So says every cultist. So have said cultists who have died for their
cults and are in hell right now for dying for a lie.

Many JWs, in fact, have died for their faith.

You think that saved them? DO you?

So boasting about what you have done for the "gospel" you follow does
not impress me. I had family put through pre-planned systematic
extermination for believing a gospel closer to mine than yours.

Does that mean THEIRS/MINE was therefore correct because they gave their
lives for their faith?

So stop boasting about what you've done for God as if that proves your
doctrine must be right

Anyone who wopuld have the gall to suggest that killing a field like
Charles Ng would be the same as killing Christ because that would not be
loving your enemy is an example of a deceived cultist--not a sane
Christian

>
> Now I have a question for you.
>
> Now that you find that I have indeed walked the walk and that I still talk
> the talk what will you do?

I'm talking about TODAY.

>
> You threw it out there as a challenge well what have you done?

Nothing. You're the one with unbalanced, legalistsc approach to the
bible. So I would ask YOU again--do you own a house or car, or other
property of significant value, or have you sold them off to feed the
poor?

You seem to own a computer--I'll wager a few poor people could be fed if
you would sell it off and feed them with the proceeds.

Once again, your serpent's tongue has apparently never heard of the US
abolitionist movement, which was the dominant movement in the US, and
often appealed to SCRIPTURE as its basis, and your biblical illiteracy
beyond that is apparently unaware that the NEW testament does not forbid
slavery or require Christians to free slaves.

Your lack of knowledge of the bible is showing again in that statement

The Quakers and other non conformists were the
> ones who spoke against it.

Abraham Lincoln was a quaker, was he? Robert E Lee was a Quaker, was he?

>
> People who hold your views went to war to protect their Christian right to
> own their brothers and to treat them any way they liked. To allow the rape
> and murder and torture of their brothers these orthodox men went to war.
>
> They called those who refused to fight lots of names and they killed quite a
> few, both black and white, for merely saying that they were wrong.
>
> I respectfully refer you to the words of Jesus Christ that you should love
> your enemies.
>

Yes--and if you are hungry, I will feed you, and if you need shelter, I
will let you stay the night. But if you try to kill me, I will shoot
you, and your blood is on your hands.



> regards
>
> Phil

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198CA...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197FD...@ix.netcom.com...
> > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > >> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5197F4...@ix.netcom.com...
> > >> 1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist wrote:
> >
> > >> >> Jim wrote in message news:
>
> snip
>
> >> If you can provide one instance of somebody being told to join the
> >> military
> >> then please do so.
>
> > I don't have to fo that. YOU have to prove one must LEAVE it, and the NT
> > has shown COMCLUSIVELY that men were told to STAY IN
>
> No, the NT does not say any such thing. John the Baptist (not a Christian)
> told a soldier that he should be non violent and not grumble about pay. Now
> you conclude that this means that it is ok to take oaths

Oy, I can't handle much more of your legalism

First, I don't have to accept YOUR definition of what's being referred
to here, and i won't.

You have been given the direct context. The broader context is
fundamentally to let your word be good as it stands without having to
invoke God as a witness to force you to keep it.

In other words, keep your darn word when you give it without having to
invoke an oath, is what Jesus says to do



If, however, our governing authorities require you to give an oath--not
with the intent as invoking God specifically as a judge and witness
(which is not its intent in our world), but rather as a legal standard
of proof to affirm truthfulness, there is no biblical warrant against
that. The biblical prohibition, at worst, is against invoking God
specifically as a judge and witness, but someone like you is to blind to
grasp that

And if you're NOT willing to uphold the constitution of the UK or
whatever country you live in, and take an oath to that effect--then get
out, and go live somewhere else! You have no right to live there, and
are a parasite as I have been saying

>
> 1) This man wasn't about to take an oath, he had already taken it so telling
> him to leave or not would not have prevented that
> 2) Any soldier who refuses to be violent won't be in the army long

Once again, there is not a prohibition against fighting in war if one is
a Christian--that is your false doctrine being presented by you as
binding on the rest of Christianity. Sorry, but whatever cult you belong
to does not dictate its doctrine to the rest of us

> 3) This was before the teaching of Christ
>
> >> If you can provide one example of somebody being told to stay in the
> >> military then please do so.
>
> > read the gospels. I won't do your homework for you, and i pointed it out
> > in an earlier thread
>
> There are no examples of anyone being told to join the military in the NT.

There does not need to be. That is not the issue

> If you say there are then either
>
> 1) You are unaware of that and thus teaching error
>
> or
>
> 2) Being deliberately dishonest

or 3 you don't know what you're talking about, and are an example of
someone out of orthodoxy

Oh--it IS number 3

>
> >> You can do neither because neither Jesus nor any Christian NT writer
>
> > The NT is not limited, as you would like it to be, to Jesus and "nt
> > writers" JTB, about whose minsitry Jesus had no complaints, no rebuke,
> > no denials, and no reopudition of, also counts.
>
> John the Baptist was not a Christian, so what he taught and preached was for
> Jews and under Jewish Law an army could be a legitimate thing. Jesus brought
> in a New Covenant and told people that things had changed. The sermon on the
> mount is very clear on this point.

More illiteracy. You have missed the point that John cleared the way for
Christ and taught they way people should live in preparation FOR Christ.
In oposition to the BS you think Jesus wants, Jesus wanted people IN the
system, working it righteously, not checking out of the system so only
the unrighteous ran things and oppressed the poeple.

>
> > For it not to count, YOU must show explicit and specific denunciation
> > repudiation and retraction of his teachings on the part of Christ, not
> > your doctrine on what Christ "really" meant.
>
> But I have shown you that Christ clearly forbade oaths and violence.

You have shown aberrant, legalistic, wooden, unbalanced interpretations
of His words which are at variance with orthodoxy.

That is a mark of CULTIC teaching.

"If you would enter into eternal life, keep the commandments"

We have people here like you, who likewise have a cultic approach to
interpreting scripture, who make aberrant, legalistic, wooden,
unbalanced interpretations of His words, and declare we must keep the
law of Moses from those words.

Join the club. You're just as bad a bible teacher.

Not
> secret meanings but clear and obvious meanings, meanings which the hearers
> understood and which early Christians acted upon.
>
> > Then you must show clear and explicit examples where soldiers who were
> > converted were ordered to leave the military were or left it on their
> > own upon conversion
>
> I need no show that

Oh yes you must. As the aberration--and you ARE the aberration--YOU, not
me who represents the orthodox view, must show that orthodoxy is wrong.

You haven't. You've simply shown aberrant, legalistic, wooden,
unbalanced interpretations of scripture and declared that as "proof" of
your position.

Sorry--if that were "proof." your position would be orthodoxy, because
orthodoxy is based on sound biblical principles of interpretation.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT ORTHODOXY!!!!! Instead, your position is
aberration based on legalistic, wooden, unbalanced interpretations of
scripture.

You are aberrant.

since you cannot show one Christian who was in the
> military or indeed one who ever was according to the NT. This despite Paul
> writing to gentiles, in the main, and yet not one mention of any Christian
> in the military service.
>
> > Show me where Jesus called upon the cebnturian to leave the military
>
> Why? Was the Centurion a Christian? No. There was no Christianity to follow
> since the Christian era did not start until after the death of Christ.
>
> > Show me where Cornelius was called upon by peter to leave the military
>
> Cornelius was converted, he is never mentioned again so I have no way of
> knowing what happened to him and neither do you.
>
> > Have at it. YOUR opinions, misquoting of verses, and arguments from
> > silence mean nothing to me
>
> But it is you who are using arguments from silence. Because it does not say
> (the argument from silence) x therefore x did not happen.
>
> I am using clear scripture, Matthew 5 is crystal clear
>
> 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Once again, that is a aberrant, legalistic, wooden, unbalanced
interpretation of His words going way beyond the basic principle to be a
prohibition to even defend yourself in time of war.

That is why you are an aberration.

The natural conclusion to your aberrant teaching is the Christ calls
Christians to live in slavery since Christians must always sheepishly
check out of society, let the unrighteous rule without reistance or
influence, never defend themselves, and allow themselves to be slaves to
anyone who comes along and puts a slave collar on them because they may
not resist.

That is not what the faith teaches, but that's what YOU teach.

You are an aberration.

I understand from your perspective that's what you're doing. I
understand your sincerity. I applaud that sincerity. But the way you
derive the doctrine and approach scripture is unbalanced and leads to
deception because it is unbalanced and legalistic.

It's no different from someone teaching that no one can be a Christian
unless they have only one set of clothes and sell all they have and give
it to the poor

Jesus did say to do that, didn't he? So someone like you, with your
aberrant approach to interpreting scripture, could legitimately teach
that.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"Annointed Remnant" wrote in message news:knbci...@drn.newsguy.com...

In article <Xdamt.1905$u_4....@newsfe09.iad>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com>
says...

>>In WWII for instance 70 million people died, most were civilians who were
>>bombed, shelled and killed in the crossfire. The soldiers who were
>>shelling
>>and bombing innocent civilians knew that there were innocent civilians
>>there
>>and they would be killed. Is that not murder? How can bombing women and
>>children not be murder friend? We even bombed France where the population
>>were our allies! Was it not murder when we bombed factories where we knew
>>the workers were Jews who were forced to work there on pain of torture and
>>death?

> You haven't reached puberty yet, have you, son? No, I get it; you're a 33
> year
> old virgin Jehovah's Witness!

Not a JW, not a child, and I forgive you :-)

Phil

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519946...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...

> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

>> snip

>> >> OK brother then show me, from the bible, that you may swear oaths.

>> > For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to
>> > them an end of all strife.

>> And where does it say that we should do that?

>> In fact Jesus has said that we should not.

>> Again you are arguing from silence.

> A verse is not an argumemnt from silence, you twit

> Inept people like youbare the ones who argue from silence when they say
> opeople like cornelius MUST have resigned from the military.

> twit

Your assumption that he did not is an argument from silence. The verse
doesn't say whether he did or not and therefore we cannot base an argument
upon it.

I forgive you, again, for the insults.

snip

> You're lucky I don't call you worse.

I don't care if you call me names for telling you the truth friend, I
forgive you for both our sakes.

snip

>> In WWII for instance 70 million people died, most were civilians who were
>> bombed, shelled and killed in the crossfire. The soldiers who were
>> shelling
>> and bombing innocent civilians knew that there were innocent civilians
>> there
>> and they would be killed. Is that not murder? How can bombing women and
>> children not be murder friend?

> Because an infinite number more would have died under the nazis whom you
> would have exterminate all subhuman races unopposed

So it is ok to murder children then? No murderer has eternal life according
to the scriptures.

snip

>> > Now let me ask you something. Do you own a house or car? If the answer
>> > is yes, how can you call yourself a Christian if you have not sold them
>> > to do good by feeding the poor?

>> I do not own a house and I have an 11 year old car that is needed for me
>> to
>> get to work. I have no money in the bank nor shares nor personal wealth.

>> > Remember what Jesus said:

>> > If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
>> > poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

>> > Have you obeyed that comamndment?

>> This is not a commandment but I shall tell you how seriously I take the
>> words of Christ.

>> I was homeless, had not eaten for 2 days and had one pound as my whole
>> worldly wealth. A beggar asked me for money and so I gave him the pound.

> so? You can give your body to be burnt and wind up in hell. JWs have
> died for their faith and wound up in hell. So?

So you asked for no reason and my reply makes no difference to you? What an
odd thing to ask then. You cannot know who will be in hell friend. You can
only make sure that it is not you.

> I'm not impressed one bit with your past sacrifcices. I know nothing of
> your salvation theology. I know only you have a pharisaic, unbalanced
> pacifistic doictrine that is biblical only to the ecxtent that it takes
> verses and applies an impractical, legalitsic standard to them that is
> not borne out by the whole counsel of God nor by the orthdox view of he
> majority of Christinanity. That doesn't equate to salvation at all

So your complaint against me is that you think it is ok to murder and I say
it is not.

> And FYI, orthodoxy, not the views of spliter groups and cults, is what
> the faith must abide by. I'm sick and tired of people like coming here
> to denoubnce the views of orthdoxy and upholding the sick views of their
> splinter groups as the "real" groups.

Why must we abide by the rules and teachings of the groups who killed
Christians?

> You JWs, Armstrongites, Messianics, LDS, and what have you, can burn
> with the "truth" of your cults.

I am none of those either. You see desperate to pin a label on me friend.

I am just a Christian.

>> I have gone hungry, slept rough, been falsely imprisoned, been
>> persecuted,
>> reviled and condemned yet I have followed after Christ. Recently I have
>> had
>> an epiphany
>> and God has again spoken to me about the full gospel of Jesus Christ, as
>> expounded by Jesus Himself.

> So says every cultist. So have said cultists who have died for their
> cults and are in hell right now for dying for a lie.

> Many JWs, in fact, have died for their faith.

Then if they died for Christ they are indeed saved, Jesus promised that to
all those who believe in him.

> You think that saved them? DO you?

No, we are saved by grace through faith.

> So boasting about what you have done for the "gospel" you follow does
> not impress me. I had family put through pre-planned systematic
> extermination for believing a gospel closer to mine than yours.

I didn't boast, I answered your question. I have nothing to boast of except
Christ. I am sorry to hear that, but they will be with the Lord and that is
better.

> Does that mean THEIRS/MINE was therefore correct because they gave their
> lives for their faith?

NO, we are saved by grace through faith.

> So stop boasting about what you've done for God as if that proves your
> doctrine must be right

> Anyone who would have the gall to suggest that killing a field like

> Charles Ng would be the same as killing Christ because that would not be
> loving your enemy is an example of a deceived cultist--not a sane
> Christian

Whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me. Would you not agree
that such a man was among the lowest?

>> Now I have a question for you.

>> Now that you find that I have indeed walked the walk and that I still
>> talk
>> the talk what will you do?

> I'm talking about TODAY.

I'm still doing it, now what will you do?

>> You threw it out there as a challenge well what have you done?

> Nothing. You're the one with unbalanced, legalistsc approach to the
> bible. So I would ask YOU again--do you own a house or car, or other
> property of significant value, or have you sold them off to feed the
> poor?

So you will just insult and attack other Christians?

> You seem to own a computer--I'll wager a few poor people could be fed if
> you would sell it off and feed them with the proceeds.

And now you wish to require that Christians live in poverty to show what?
Jesus did not require it of anyone.

You only ask because you wish to find a reason to insult me. But I answered
for today.

Now what will you do, today, to spread the love of Christ?

>> The orthodox view that you support was the one which agreed with mass
>> slavery in the good ole USA.

> Once again, your serpent's tongue has apparently never heard of the US
> abolitionist movement, which was the dominant movement in the US, and
> often appealed to SCRIPTURE as its basis, and your biblical illiteracy
> beyond that is apparently unaware that the NEW testament does not forbid
> slavery or require Christians to free slaves.

> Your lack of knowledge of the bible is showing again in that statement

The NT says that those who own slaves should treat then as brothers. It was
illegal to teach slaves to read and write, they were not allowed to have a
prayer meeting or a church service on their own, they were not allowed to
stay together in families, their marriages were not counted and they could
neither inherit nor be freed ever in some states.

Who treats their brother like that?

The NT says that if a slave can be free he should do so.

The abolitionists were not the majority party, a good few were murdered in
the South.

The war occurred because the South was not allowed to expand slave keeping
in to new states.

>> The Quakers and other non conformists were the
>> ones who spoke against it.

> Abraham Lincoln was a quaker, was he? Robert E Lee was a Quaker, was he?

Robert E. Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves friend. He also
opposed giving freed slaves the vote.

Lincoln was heavily influenced by Uncle Tom's Cabin, the author of which
researched her work extensively. I suggest you read that research. In fact
Lincoln said when he met the author "so you are the woman who started all
this trouble". You would learn a lot from reading the author's research.

snip

> Yes--and if you are hungry, I will feed you, and if you need shelter, I
> will let you stay the night. But if you try to kill me, I will shoot
> you, and your blood is on your hands.

Which Afghan children were trying to kill US troops when they were bombed?

Phil

[vince garcia]

For the final time, i/we do not allow YOU to define what "murder" is

>
> >> > Now let me ask you something. Do you own a house or car? If the answer
> >> > is yes, how can you call yourself a Christian if you have not sold them
> >> > to do good by feeding the poor?
>
> >> I do not own a house and I have an 11 year old car that is needed for me
> >> to
> >> get to work. I have no money in the bank nor shares nor personal wealth.
>
> >> > Remember what Jesus said:
>
> >> > If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
> >> > poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
>
> >> > Have you obeyed that comamndment?
>
> >> This is not a commandment but I shall tell you how seriously I take the
> >> words of Christ.
>
> >> I was homeless, had not eaten for 2 days and had one pound as my whole
> >> worldly wealth. A beggar asked me for money and so I gave him the pound.
>
> > so? You can give your body to be burnt and wind up in hell. JWs have
> > died for their faith and wound up in hell. So?
>
> So you asked for no reason and my reply makes no difference to you? What an
> odd thing to ask then. You cannot know who will be in hell friend.

Oh yes I can. I most certainly can. That you make that statement says a
lot about the fatakl flaw in your belief system. I'll say more about
that in a moment when I nail you for the final time.

You can
> only make sure that it is not you.
>
> > I'm not impressed one bit with your past sacrifcices. I know nothing of
> > your salvation theology. I know only you have a pharisaic, unbalanced
> > pacifistic doictrine that is biblical only to the ecxtent that it takes
> > verses and applies an impractical, legalitsic standard to them that is
> > not borne out by the whole counsel of God nor by the orthdox view of he
> > majority of Christinanity. That doesn't equate to salvation at all
>
> So your complaint against me is that you think it is ok to murder and I say
> it is not.

see my 1st statement

>
> > And FYI, orthodoxy, not the views of spliter groups and cults, is what
> > the faith must abide by. I'm sick and tired of people like coming here
> > to denoubnce the views of orthdoxy and upholding the sick views of their
> > splinter groups as the "real" groups.
>
> Why must we abide by the rules and teachings of the groups who killed
> Christians?
>
> > You JWs, Armstrongites, Messianics, LDS, and what have you, can burn
> > with the "truth" of your cults.
>
> I am none of those either. You see desperate to pin a label on me friend.
>
> I am just a Christian.

So says most every cultist with a false gospel.

>
> >> I have gone hungry, slept rough, been falsely imprisoned, been
> >> persecuted,
> >> reviled and condemned yet I have followed after Christ. Recently I have
> >> had
> >> an epiphany
> >> and God has again spoken to me about the full gospel of Jesus Christ, as
> >> expounded by Jesus Himself.
>
> > So says every cultist. So have said cultists who have died for their
> > cults and are in hell right now for dying for a lie.
>
> > Many JWs, in fact, have died for their faith.
>
> Then if they died for Christ they are indeed saved, Jesus promised that to
> all those who believe in him.

BINGO! Now we have you exposed. Jws have a false Christ and a false
Gospel. It is unfortunately impossible to die for the angel Christ and
the gospel of works taught by the JWs, and enter into eternal life. That
you just implied they could show you, yourself, have a philosophically
similar incorrect gospel that boils down to mental assent and good works
equal salvation.

You just let that slip by your comments.

In the case of a JW, there is no such thing as "if they died for Christ"

They CANNOT die for Christ because they do not and cannot know Christ
because of the way the define Christ

That you think there is any possibility that they can shows your line of
thinking is that some sort of mental assent acknowledging Christ is
sufficient, and some sort of godlying, pacifist living is enough to seal
it, and your posts betray that

Sorry, but your gospel likewise is a false one, but it is one followed
by many lost people.

>
> > You think that saved them? DO you?
>
> No, we are saved by grace through faith.
>
> > So boasting about what you have done for the "gospel" you follow does
> > not impress me. I had family put through pre-planned systematic
> > extermination for believing a gospel closer to mine than yours.
>
> I didn't boast, I answered your question. I have nothing to boast of except
> Christ. I am sorry to hear that, but they will be with the Lord and that is
> better.
>
> > Does that mean THEIRS/MINE was therefore correct because they gave their
> > lives for their faith?
>
> NO, we are saved by grace through faith.

Right words, but your other words betray wrong doctrine at the heart of
what you really believe or you would NEVER imply a JW could "die for
Christ".

JWs do not have faith; they have mental assent, as I believe you do by
your words and doctrine.

If you do not, you should retract your statement about a JW being able
to die for Christ because you are leaving them anfd those who tread your
words with the impression that you tolerate their belief system, and
consider them brethren

If you consider them brethren of yours with the same savior, to hell
with you

>
> > So stop boasting about what you've done for God as if that proves your
> > doctrine must be right
>
> > Anyone who would have the gall to suggest that killing a field like
> > Charles Ng would be the same as killing Christ because that would not be
> > loving your enemy is an example of a deceived cultist--not a sane
> > Christian
>
> Whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me. Would you not agree
> that such a man was among the lowest?

First, don't you dare duck the issue: Equating Charles Ng with Jesus
Christ is despicable.

Next, the verse is talking about a member of the community--the poor of
which in that era which were treated with comntempt because it was
viewed as a sign of a curse from God--not a pagan serial killer.

Yes, we treat Ng with compassion to the extent we will witness to him or
pull him out of a burning car (then tie his butt up for the cops), and
accept him if he repents. But we don't love and cherish him as a brother
BEFOREHAND as you would have us do, let alone allow him to kill us
unopposed so he can go kill the next person after us.

Your ignorance of the Bible, the culture, and your poor skills at
exegesis are amazing. But then, that's why you're an aberration

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican.


Do you treat a heathen man and a publican as a beloved brother, you
twit? Is Jesus there implying that the way publicans and heathen are
treated is like beloved brethren?

Treat him as you do a heathen and publican...

Well--how do YOU treat a heathan and publican? YOU treat them as beloved
brethren because you think Jesus comamnds you to do that. JESUS expects
you to treat them with CONTEMPT!!!!!!!!

Selah that, fool. Jesus JUST COMMANDED YOU TO TREAT A FELLOW CHRISTIAN
IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE CONTEMPT AND SHUNNING HE EXPECTS A
PUBLICAN AND HEATHEN TO BE TREATED WITH

That's the exact opposite of what YOU teach

>
> >> Now I have a question for you.
>
> >> Now that you find that I have indeed walked the walk and that I still
> >> talk
> >> the talk what will you do?
>
> > I'm talking about TODAY.
>
> I'm still doing it, now what will you do?

You've sold any house and car? Please affirm that specifically

If the answer is yes, I applaud your sincerity. If the answer is no, I
think you're not sincere

>
> >> You threw it out there as a challenge well what have you done?
>
> > Nothing. You're the one with unbalanced, legalistsc approach to the
> > bible. So I would ask YOU again--do you own a house or car, or other
> > property of significant value, or have you sold them off to feed the
> > poor?
>
> So you will just insult and attack other Christians?

I'm not convinced you're a Christian as I just said; I think you're a
counterfeit with mental assent until proven otherwise because of your
acceptance of JWs as being able to die for Christ

>
> > You seem to own a computer--I'll wager a few poor people could be fed if
> > you would sell it off and feed them with the proceeds.
>
> And now you wish to require that Christians live in poverty to show what?
> Jesus did not require it of anyone.

If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

What is there about that which you don't understand, you who takes other
verses like a pharisee to the point you want Christians checking out of
society?

>
> You only ask because you wish to find a reason to insult me. But I answered
> for today.
>
> Now what will you do, today, to spread the love of Christ?

Refute your false doctrine and false gospel that holds a JW is capable
of dying for Christ when his Christ is actually a demonic counterfeit

Again--your statement is born from a gospel of mental assent not true
faith

>
> >> The orthodox view that you support was the one which agreed with mass
> >> slavery in the good ole USA.
>
> > Once again, your serpent's tongue has apparently never heard of the US
> > abolitionist movement, which was the dominant movement in the US, and
> > often appealed to SCRIPTURE as its basis, and your biblical illiteracy
> > beyond that is apparently unaware that the NEW testament does not forbid
> > slavery or require Christians to free slaves.
>
> > Your lack of knowledge of the bible is showing again in that statement
>
> The NT says that those who own slaves should treat then as brothers. It was
> illegal to teach slaves to read and write, they were not allowed to have a
> prayer meeting or a church service on their own, they were not allowed to
> stay together in families, their marriages were not counted and they could
> neither inherit nor be freed ever in some states.
>
> Who treats their brother like that?
>
> The NT says that if a slave can be free he should do so.
>
> The abolitionists were not the majority party, a good few were murdered in
> the South.
>
> The war occurred because the South was not allowed to expand slave keeping
> in to new states.

Stop trying to bluff out your biblical and historical lack of knowledge.
I was right on every last point. sheesh

>
> >> The Quakers and other non conformists were the
> >> ones who spoke against it.
>
> > Abraham Lincoln was a quaker, was he? Robert E Lee was a Quaker, was he?
>
> Robert E. Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves friend.

Please stop digging yourself a deeper grave. The south wwasn't fighting
to KEEP slavery. The north wasn't fighting to END slavery.

He also
> opposed giving freed slaves the vote.
>
> Lincoln was heavily influenced by Uncle Tom's Cabin, the author of which
> researched her work extensively.

LOL. Stowe didn't even read many of the books she cited in the
bibliography!!!!!!

STOP!!!!!!!!!!! You're not a bible teacher. You're not a historian.

I suggest you read that research. In fact
> Lincoln said when he met the author "so you are the woman who started all
> this trouble". You would learn a lot from reading the author's research.

"researched her work extensively"-sheesh

>
> snip
>
> > Yes--and if you are hungry, I will feed you, and if you need shelter, I
> > will let you stay the night. But if you try to kill me, I will shoot
> > you, and your blood is on your hands.
>
> Which Afghan children were trying to kill US troops when they were bombed?
>
> Phil

That's on the head of your brother, Mullah Omar, and your brother Osama,
and yourself

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Should a Christian go to war?



by Matt Slick

This question has caused a lot of division in the body of Christ.
Should a Christian go to war where he might kill other people when the
Bible says to "turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29)? Is it right to do
war against others or does the Bible forbid it?

War is a state of declared, open, and armed conflict between two or
more nations. It is sometimes undertaken in self-defense such as when
the U.S. entered WWII as a result of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
Other times, however, nations unjustly go to war to take spoils from
other countries. Murder, on the other hand, is an unlawful taking of
life and is always wrong. When nations go to war, it is declared
lawful by the countries going to war -- sometimes for moral reasons
and other times for immoral reasons. Therefore, and immoral war could
be considered a form of murder where a moral war could be in self
defense. But not all war is wrong.

It is difficult to determine when war would be a righteous endeavor
given that leaders of nations are not Christian and could easily have
ungodly reasons for going to war. Nevertheless, war is an unfortunate
reality in this world and it causes great destruction, misery, and
loss of life. It should be avoided if possible and undertaken only as
a last resort.

The Bible teaches that we have the right to self defense, Exodus 22:2:
"If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he
dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account." The Bible
also tells us to protect the innocent, Deut. 19:10, "So innocent blood
will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God
gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you." Also,
see "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons
be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for
his own sin," (Deut. 24:16). If we were to apply these principles to
war, I would conclude that war is justifiable when it is in self
defense and/or when it is to protect the innocent. Therefore, a
Christian could rightfully engage in war given those conditions.
More on war

We can see that war is not a sin in itself since in the Old Testament
God sends people into war:

"Then the Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by the Jordan
opposite Jericho, saying, 51 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to
them, "When you cross over the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 52 then
you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you,
and destroy all their figured stones, and destroy all their molten
images and demolish all their high places; 53 and you shall take
possession of the land and live in it, for I have given the land to
you to possess it," (Num. 33:50-53).

In fact, God uses war as a means of disciplining nations.

"I sent a plague among you after the manner of Egypt; I slew your
young men by the sword along with your captured horses, And I made the
stench of your camp rise up in your nostrils; Yet you have not
returned to Me, declares the Lord," (Amos 4:10).

Also, the Lord is called a warrior.

"The Lord is a warrior; The Lord is His name. 4"Pharaoh's chariots
and his army He has cast into the sea; And the choicest of his
officers are drowned in the Red Sea," (Exodus 15:3-4).

From this we can easily conclude that going to war is not a sin. That
is, if it complies with the biblical instructions of self-defense and
protection of the innocent.

Furthermore, Christians are instructed to be in subjection to the
governing authorities whose establishment is from God. This
establishment has the right to declare war and to punish its
citizenry, even by capital punishment.

"Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities.
For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are
established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed
the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive
condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for
good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority?
Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a
minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be
afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a
minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who
practices evil," (Rom. 13:1-4).
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution,
whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent
by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do
right," (1 Peter 2:13-14).

Finally, notice that some soldiers approached John the Baptist and
inquired about repentance. John did not tell them to stop being
soldiers, but to do their jobs properly, honestly.

"And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about
us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from
anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your
wages," (Luke 3:14).

From all of this, we can see that going to war is not wrong it itself
and that a Christian can go to war under the right circumstances.

http://carm.org/should-christian-go-war

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519A10...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519946...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...
> > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

snip

>> Then if they died for Christ they are indeed saved, Jesus promised that
>> to
>> all those who believe in him.


> BINGO! Now we have you exposed. Jws have a false Christ and a false
> Gospel. It is unfortunately impossible to die for the angel Christ and
> the gospel of works taught by the JWs, and enter into eternal life. That
> you just implied they could show you, yourself, have a philosophically
> similar incorrect gospel that boils down to mental assent and good works
> equal salvation.

You are, again, mistaken and sadly unable to read what I write without
misreading it.

Note the first 2 words "Then if" so it is conditional on whether they knew
Christ or not. I cannot know what their relationship was with regard to
Jesus at the moment of their death and neither can you. The Watchtower
certainly teaches a salvation by works, just as most so called evangelicals
do but they are unaware of it. I cannot possibly have implied anything by
making a conditional statement.

Could you tell me what theological position the thief on the cross took on
the trinity? dispensationalism?

> You just let that slip by your comments.

No friend, you misread and then misunderstood.

> In the case of a JW, there is no such thing as "if they died for Christ"

So it is impossible for someone brought up with JWism to believe? Amazing is
it not that you can not only tell who can be saved but also who will be in
heaven and who in hell. Have you had these godlike gifts all your life or
did you just assign them to yourself contrary to the scriptures?

> They CANNOT die for Christ because they do not and cannot know Christ
> because of the way the define Christ

With God all things are possible, the disciples were told this because it is
very hard for a rich man to enter in to heaven. Are the JWs worse than the
rich? I think not.

> That you think there is any possibility that they can shows your line of
> thinking is that some sort of mental assent acknowledging Christ is
> sufficient, and some sort of godlying, pacifist living is enough to seal
> it, and your posts betray that

I believe the gospel as recorded in the four gospels and explained by the
Apostle Paul. You appear to think you have godlike powers.

> Sorry, but your gospel likewise is a false one, but it is one followed
> by many lost people.

So if you deny what Jesus said, deny what Paul taught and make two logical
fallacies the basis for your argument do you think that makes you a
Christian?

snip

> NO, we are saved by grace through faith.

> Right words, but your other words betray wrong doctrine at the heart of
> what you really believe or you would NEVER imply a JW could "die for
> Christ".

> JWs do not have faith; they have mental assent, as I believe you do by
> your words and doctrine.

You should meet my friend Pete who became a Christian whilst a JW.

> If you do not, you should retract your statement about a JW being able
> to die for Christ because you are leaving them anfd those who tread your
> words with the impression that you tolerate their belief system, and
> consider them brethren

> If you consider them brethren of yours with the same savior, to hell
> with you

Jesus said that all those that believe that he is the Christ will be saved
and I believe him. Ordinarily those people would be self proclaimed
Christians but they may well spend time in the RCC, The Watchtower,
Mormonism etc before they realise that they are part of an organisation that
teaches falsely.

snip

> Whatever you do unto the least of these you do unto me. Would you not
> agree
> that such a man was among the lowest?

> First, don't you dare duck the issue: Equating Charles Ng with Jesus
> Christ is despicable.

I didn't duck the issue I pointed out that for all you know the person you
are about to kill might have come to Christ had you not killed them. You are
assuming the power of life and death over another human being.

> Next, the verse is talking about a member of the community--the poor of
> which in that era which were treated with comntempt because it was
> viewed as a sign of a curse from God--not a pagan serial killer.

You mean like Paul? A killer of Christians and a follower of a false
religion?

> Yes, we treat Ng with compassion to the extent we will witness to him or
> pull him out of a burning car (then tie his butt up for the cops), and
> accept him if he repents. But we don't love and cherish him as a brother
> BEFOREHAND as you would have us do, let alone allow him to kill us
> unopposed so he can go kill the next person after us.

Can you show me where Jesus said that we could hate anyone? Or where he said
that we should only love the nice people?

> your ignorance of the Bible, the culture, and your poor skills at

> exegesis are amazing. But then, that's why you're an aberration

Have you ever read the early church fathers? Tolstoy? Spurgeon? Calvin?
Wesley?

> And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he
> neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
> publican.

So now we should treat all men like unrepentant Jewish kin? Where did Jesus
teach that friend?

> Do you treat a heathen man and a publican as a beloved brother, you
> twit? Is Jesus there implying that the way publicans and heathen are
> treated is like beloved brethren?

Jesus ate with the publicans and sinners, went to their homes, healed them,
loved them and died for them.

> Treat him as you do a heathen and publican...

> Well--how do YOU treat a heathan and publican? YOU treat them as beloved
> brethren because you think Jesus comamnds you to do that. JESUS expects
> you to treat them with CONTEMPT!!!!!!!!

Can I quote Jesus on that very matter?

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and
hate thine enemy.
44 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;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he
maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the
just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the
publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not
even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.

> Selah that, fool. Jesus JUST COMMANDED YOU TO TREAT A FELLOW CHRISTIAN
> IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE CONTEMPT AND SHUNNING HE EXPECTS A
> PUBLICAN AND HEATHEN TO BE TREATED WITH

> That's the exact opposite of what YOU teach

Those verses do nor relate to the church, Jesus was teaching the Jews, it is
a translation error to imply that Christians are being discussed. Jesus told
them to take it to the assembly (that is the Jewish elders) and if their
brother would not repent then they should treat them as a stranger. Jesus
nowhere taught anyone to treat another person with contempt.

>> >> Now I have a question for you.

> >> Now that you find that I have indeed walked the walk and that I still
>> >> talk
>> >> the talk what will you do?

>> > I'm talking about TODAY.

>> I'm still doing it, now what will you do?

> You've sold any house and car? Please affirm that specifically

> If the answer is yes, I applaud your sincerity. If the answer is no, I
> think you're not sincere

I have already told you that I don't own a house to sell. So I cannot sell a
house can I? I also told you that I have an 11 year old car which has an
almost nil value since it is due an MoT in 3 months and will have to be
scrapped as it needs major work.

>> >> You threw it out there as a challenge well what have you done?

>> > Nothing. You're the one with unbalanced, legalistsc approach to the
>> > bible. So I would ask YOU again--do you own a house or car, or other
>> > property of significant value, or have you sold them off to feed the
>> > poor?

>> So you will just insult and attack other Christians?

> I'm not convinced you're a Christian as I just said; I think you're a
> counterfeit with mental assent until proven otherwise because of your
> acceptance of JWs as being able to die for Christ

So you just attack and insult people whether they are Christians or not. How
very Christ like of you. I remember Jesus calling Nicodemus a parasitic twit
in John 3, oh and then calling Herod a hypocritical scumbag! Why do you act
so unlike Jesus but claim to be able to be a Christian and say who is or
isn't a Christian as well?

What did Jesus call people who claimed he was their Lord but didn't do what
he said?

>> > You seem to own a computer--I'll wager a few poor people could be fed
>> > if
>> > you would sell it off and feed them with the proceeds.

>> And now you wish to require that Christians live in poverty to show what?
>> Jesus did not require it of anyone.

> If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the
> poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

You are, again, quoting a verse out of context. That is a pretext. Just as
you have also appealed to the masses and used arguments from silence. Your
debating method is to insult, attack and then insult again.

I forgive you of course but for your own sake you really should learn that
without love you are nothing.

> What is there about that which you don't understand, you who takes other
> verses like a pharisee to the point you want Christians checking out of
> society?

You don't know much about the Pharisees do you? They weren't literalists (as
you seem to think I am) they were far more liberal and far from being rigid
authoritarians (like the Sadducees and Levites) they were more like a
liberal Anglican in comparison to a the more rigid RCs.

>> You only ask because you wish to find a reason to insult me. But I
>> answered
>> for today.

>> Now what will you do, today, to spread the love of Christ?

> Refute your false doctrine and false gospel that holds a JW is capable
> of dying for Christ when his Christ is actually a demonic counterfeit

> Again--your statement is born from a gospel of mental assent not true
> faith

So you will do nothing. You will insult and attack and claim that Christ is
in that. That is so very sad.

Once again you have no argument, you were wrong and any history book will
show the truth of that.

>> >> The Quakers and other non conformists were the
>> >> ones who spoke against it.

>> > Abraham Lincoln was a quaker, was he? Robert E Lee was a Quaker, was
>> > he?

>> Robert E. Lee was fighting for the right to keep slaves friend.

> Please stop digging yourself a deeper grave. The south wwasn't fighting
> to KEEP slavery. The north wasn't fighting to END slavery.

You don't know your history. The debate was whether slavery could be
extended in to the Western States, it had protected status already in the
South and there was no danger of it being abolished in the South.

Here is a link to a simple explanation of what went on and why
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

A million Americans died as the Southern States fought to extend slavery.

>> He also
>> opposed giving freed slaves the vote.

>> Lincoln was heavily influenced by Uncle Tom's Cabin, the author of which
>> researched her work extensively.

> LOL. Stowe didn't even read many of the books she cited in the
> bibliography!!!!!!

> STOP!!!!!!!!!!! You're not a bible teacher. You're not a historian.

Again you do not know your history, she published the book of her research
and quoted all her sources extensively.

>> I suggest you read that research. In fact
>> Lincoln said when he met the author "so you are the woman who started all
>> this trouble". You would learn a lot from reading the author's research.

> "researched her work extensively"-sheesh

She was then, and still is now, much maligned by the bigots and rednecks who
wanted to abuse their brothers and sisters in Christ whenever they so chose.

Are you such a man as that?

>> snip

>> > Yes--and if you are hungry, I will feed you, and if you need shelter, I
>> > will let you stay the night. But if you try to kill me, I will shoot
>> > you, and your blood is on your hands.

>> Which Afghan children were trying to kill US troops when they were
>> bombed?

>> Phil

> That's on the head of your brother, Mullah Omar, and your brother Osama,
> and yourself

So when the USA invaded Iraq and killed women and children that was because
they knew that in the future there would be attacks on the Twin Towers?

To quote you "sheesh"

The USA provoked the same kind of people as you and they reacted just like
you would and how you suggest they should. They saw the US butchering,
raping, torturing and killing and then desecrating their religion and they
decided to kill some Americans in revenge.

Americans live by the sword and so they die that way.

Nobody likes Americans because you are always interfering and yet you have
an appalling record at home. You lock up more people than any other country
in the world (% of population in prison), you have a massive racism problem
(Nazis marching in the good ole USA), your sdciety is the most violent
western society, you have and use chemical weapons, you have WoMD and do not
allow inspections, you torture men who have committed no crimes and people
who have had no trial are kept in prison for years.

Oh and your Christianity is the most polluted by greed and filth and
corruption.

Phil

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519A10...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519946...@ix.netcom.com...
> > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> Then if they died for Christ they are indeed saved, Jesus promised that
> >> to
> >> all those who believe in him.
>
> > BINGO! Now we have you exposed. Jws have a false Christ and a false
> > Gospel. It is unfortunately impossible to die for the angel Christ and
> > the gospel of works taught by the JWs, and enter into eternal life. That
> > you just implied they could show you, yourself, have a philosophically
> > similar incorrect gospel that boils down to mental assent and good works
> > equal salvation.
>
> You are, again, mistaken and sadly unable to read what I write without
> misreading it.
>
> Note the first 2 words "Then if" so it is conditional on whether they knew
> Christ or not. I cannot know what their relationship was with regard to
> Jesus at the moment of their death and neither can you.

Sorry, but that technicality cannot be used to justify your statement.
Any card-carrying member of the JWs who embraces the Christ of the JWs
and the gospel of the JWs, and dies for that Christ and that gospel dies
in damnation.

I'm sorry for that, but that's the truth.

Your statement appealing to only a theoretical technicality which is as
applicable to some moslem who may have heard some kernel of the gospel
on the radio he may have accepted before dying in a car crash on the way
to the mosque before he ultimately would have left it, implies, that the
JWs are on par, or roughly on par with an orthodox Christian movement.

Wrong.

That statement was misleading, and outrageous on your part. It has as
much sense as saying "If a hindu/moslem/Jew/agnostic/buddhist died for
Christ," which means they WEREN'T a hindu/moslem/Jew/agnostic/buddhist;
they were in fact a CHRISTIAN who had not left those false religions.

So too with your theretically saved JW. If he is dying for the REAL
Christ, he is NOT a JW because the JWs do not KNOW or TEACH the real
Christ and so do not teach what that person dying as a JW apparently is
believing at the moment of his death.

The Watchtower
> certainly teaches a salvation by works, just as most so called evangelicals
> do but they are unaware of it.

That you equate the gospel of the JWs with that of evangelical
Christianity makes an even worse statement about you than even what's
come before.

I have nothing more to say to someone who thinks JWs and most
evangelicals have the same gospel

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

Jim wrote in message news:

> Should a Christian go to war?

Not when Jesus teachers his faithful [immersed in water] brethren, not to
"Resist evil" and forbids them to harm or "kill" other humans, and to make
sure to "Love your enemies". It makes it impossible, but millions 'fall by
the wayside' when war looms in their country.

This happen in both world wars, where professing 'christians' fought each
other and even ask God to bless their efforts in killing their enemies.
Blatant hypocrisy!!!

Jeff...

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 20, 2:44 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"

Glad, you admit you would have been a "good German"
and do nothing to save those about to be gassed.

Numbers 35:19
The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer:
when he meeteth him,
he shall slay him.

[1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist]

wrote in message
news:02f6a31f-2643-4ac7...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

On May 20, 2:44 pm, "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"
<jnhickl...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Jim wrote in message news:
> > Should a Christian go to war?
>
> Not when Jesus teachers his faithful [immersed in water] brethren, not to
> "Resist evil" and forbids them to harm or "kill" other humans, and to make
> sure to "Love your enemies". It makes it impossible, but millions 'fall
> by
> the wayside' when war looms in their country.
>
> This happen in both world wars, where professing 'christians' fought each
> other and even ask God to bless their efforts in killing their enemies.
> Blatant hypocrisy!!!
>
> Jeff...

~ Glad, you admit you would have been a "good German"
~ and do nothing to save those about to be gassed.

It's a matter of being a "Good" follower of Christ's teaching not to kill
or harm other human beings and to "Love our ENEMIES".
What the German's did under the leadership of Hitler is in the capable hands
of Almighty God who raised him into power in the first place.

> Numbers 35:19
> The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer:
> when he meeteth him,
> he shall slay him.

Christ's brethren are no longer under such laws.
Christ's Laws are now what matter in this Christian dispensation.

And he forbids "resisting evil" and even forbids retaliation even when
personally attacked or assaulted.

"38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
a tooth: 39 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"

Matt 5:38-39 (KJV)

It is very hard to do this, much, much, harder then not retaliating and
defending oneself, nevertheless, it is what the Master commands of his
faithful Saints.

Jeff...

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519A7A...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519A10...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519946...@ix.netcom.com...
> > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

snip

>> Note the first 2 words "Then if" so it is conditional on whether they
>> knew
>> Christ or not. I cannot know what their relationship was with regard to
>> Jesus at the moment of their death and neither can you.

> Sorry, but that technicality cannot be used to justify your statement.
> Any card-carrying member of the JWs who embraces the Christ of the JWs
> and the gospel of the JWs, and dies for that Christ and that gospel dies
> in damnation.

> I'm sorry for that, but that's the truth.

It isn't a technicality, it is plain English. Once again you are claiming to
know what you cannot know, are you a gnostic of some sort?

> Your statement appealing to only a theoretical technicality which is as
> applicable to some moslem who may have heard some kernel of the gospel
> on the radio he may have accepted before dying in a car crash on the way
> to the mosque before he ultimately would have left it, implies, that the
> JWs are on par, or roughly on par with an orthodox Christian movement.

> Wrong.

The JW's are on a par with the RCC. Both teach a false gospel, have a false
religion and claim to be the only true Christians.

>> The Watchtower
>> certainly teaches a salvation by works, just as most so called
>> evangelicals
>> do but they are unaware of it.

> That you equate the gospel of the JWs with that of evangelical
> Christianity makes an even worse statement about you than even what's
> come before.

> I have nothing more to say to someone who thinks JWs and most
> evangelicals have the same gospel

Most Christians believe that what you do is what matters, indeed a good few
follow arminianism which is a works based salvation. They think the 10
Commandments are still in force. They think that killing, oath making,
revenge, divorce and other such sins are acceptable. Their religion is
therefore no better than tat of the JWs.

Of course you may think that a murdering adulterer is saved but indications
are that they are not.

Phil

[vince garcia]

Again, you show how ignorant you are. I am an "arminian". Everyone here
knows to the Nth degree how much I utterly repudiate the notion that
anything but faith alone can save.

So there again we see how your ignorance now has you redefining what
arminiansim is into your own image just as you do the bible

This is why you have no business commenting

They think the 10
> Commandments are still in force.

And again, you show what you don't know about the bible. The 10 have
never existed, and cannot exist, apart from the 613. You have too much
gentile thinking in you, but that's typical of all gentile Christians so
it's not just you. Try reading the book of hebrews sometime and you may
learn something

>They think that killing,



>oath making,

I've never seen anyone but you teach "oath breaking" is in the 10
commandments"


> revenge,
I've never seen anyone but you teach "revenge" is in the 10
commandments"

> divorce
I've never seen anyone but you teach "divorce" is in the 10
commandments"

FYI--divorce is not prohibited in the new covenant. REMARRIAGE is only
allowed for adultery or abandonement.

>and other such sins are acceptable.

Divorce is not a sin. Now you are playing God and inventing sins on your
own

Their religion is
> therefore no better than tat of the JWs.

I'm glad your misconceptions and inventing of sins where the bible does
not call them sins except under certain circumstances qualifies you to
judge

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING FOR
THE CAUSE of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever
shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery

And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, AND MARRY
ANOTHER, committeth adultery against her.

>

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519B5F...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519A7A...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519A10...@ix.netcom.com...
> > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519946...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
> > > > "vince garcia" wrote in message news:5198EF...@ix.netcom.com...
> > > > philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

SNIP

>> Most Christians believe that what you do is what matters, indeed a good
>> few
>> follow arminianism which is a works based salvation.

> Again, you show how ignorant you are. I am an "arminian". Everyone here
> knows to the Nth degree how much I utterly repudiate the notion that
> anything but faith alone can save.

> So there again we see how your ignorance now has you redefining what
> arminiansim is into your own image just as you do the bible

> This is why you have no business commenting

Then you are teaching a false gospel and taking away the security that the
Apostle John says that Christians have. Also you are not "orthodox" as you
claim.

The orthodox churches reject arminianism.

If you reject the idea that any work can save do you also reject the idea
that you are able to do something to save yourself?

If you do not believe that you can do something that decides whether you are
saved or not then you are not arminian.

Arminius believed and taught that both salvation and damnation are choices
that people make. Jesus taught precisely the opposite. Paul taught precisely
the opposite. You are, if you are an arminian, merely a pelagian in
disguise.

>> They think the 10
>> Commandments are still in force.

> And again, you show what you don't know about the bible. The 10 have
> never existed, and cannot exist, apart from the 613. You have too much
> gentile thinking in you, but that's typical of all gentile Christians so
> it's not just you. Try reading the book of hebrews sometime and you may
> learn something

Oh *I* know that but most evangelicals belong to churches that teach that
there are two laws in the Mosaic Covenant, the moral and the ceremonial and
that the moral laws (as encapsulated in the 10Cs) are still in force.

Of course they are not because the Law and the Prophets were "until John".

>>They think that killing,

What nothing to condemn people who think that killing women and children can
be a Christian act?

>>oath making,

> I've never seen anyone but you teach "oath breaking" is in the 10
> commandments"

I have not said that it is, but you do struggle with English.

>> revenge,

> I've never seen anyone but you teach "revenge" is in the 10
> commandments"

See aboe

> > divorce

> I've never seen anyone but you teach "divorce" is in the 10
> commandments"

see above

> FYI--divorce is not prohibited in the new covenant. REMARRIAGE is only
> allowed for adultery or abandonement.

Remarriage is not allowed except if the Christian is abandoned by the non
Christian spouse. The so called "exception" in Matthew is no such thing. I
expect you don't actually understand what Jesus said in Matthew and
therefore have just gone along with it.

Jesus taught them that, except in the case of fornication, divorcing your
wife caused her to commit adultery. That is to say that if she has already
committed fornication then she is already adulterated. Jesus did not give
permission for divorce nor for remarriage. Divorce had only ever been
allowed because of hard heartedness on the part of the Jews, that winking at
sin has now stopped.

>>and other such sins are acceptable.

> Divorce is not a sin. Now you are playing God and inventing sins on your
> own

It most certainly is and Jesus was absolutely clear about it.

>> Their religion is
>> therefore no better than tat of the JWs.

> I'm glad your misconceptions and inventing of sins where the bible does
> not call them sins except under certain circumstances qualifies you to
> judge

You are about to quote scripture that proves me right :-)

> But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, SAVING FOR
> THE CAUSE of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever

> shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So if you divorce your wife for any reason at all you force her to commit
adultery when she remarries, if she has already sinned in that way then of
course you haven't caused her to do that. Whoever marries her is also
committing adultery.

> And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, AND MARRY
> ANOTHER, committeth adultery against her.

So whoever remarries commits adultery, whether man or woman.

Now what was your point again?

Oh yes you are trying to say that divorce is not a sin.

On divorce

God hates divorce

"For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away"

That word used for hate is also used in "There are six things the Lord
hates, seven that he detests!"

Is doing something that God hates not a sin?

What did Jesus say? ""So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore
what God has joined together, let no one separate." "

So disobeying Christ and doing what God hates is not a sin?

You are mistaken brother.

regards

Phil

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

> wrote in message
> news:9a4027af-5bfb-461b...@h13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...

> Should a Christian go to war?

No, which is why they don't.

> This question has caused a lot of division in the body of Christ.
> Should a Christian go to war where he might kill other people when the
> Bible says to "turn the other cheek" (Luke 6:29)? Is it right to do
> war against others or does the Bible forbid it?

Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of God's
revelation for what is right and what is wrong

> War is a state of declared, open, and armed conflict between two or
> more nations. It is sometimes undertaken in self-defense such as when
> the U.S. entered WWII as a result of Japan attacking Pearl Harbor.
> Other times, however, nations unjustly go to war to take spoils from
> other countries. Murder, on the other hand, is an unlawful taking of
> life and is always wrong. When nations go to war, it is declared
> lawful by the countries going to war -- sometimes for moral reasons
> and other times for immoral reasons. Therefore, and immoral war could
> be considered a form of murder where a moral war could be in self
> defense. But not all war is wrong.

Already you have gone horribly wrong. If you wish to know whether something
is murder or not you cannot refer to human rules but to God and what Jesus
has told us is murder. To conclude that because law is legal then it isn't
wrong is to conclude that the holocaust was not wrong, that the carpet
bombing of Vietnam was not wrong, that all sorts of hideous things are not
wrong.

God is the arbiter of what is right and wrong, not man.

> It is difficult to determine when war would be a righteous endeavor
> given that leaders of nations are not Christian and could easily have
> ungodly reasons for going to war. Nevertheless, war is an unfortunate
> reality in this world and it causes great destruction, misery, and
> loss of life. It should be avoided if possible and undertaken only as
> a last resort.

It is not difficult to determine at all, the difficult trick is to persuade
anyone that Jesus didn't teach that killing was wrong. Sadly over 2,000
years very many wicked people have done just that and many many more have
been taken in with the idea that the Prince of Peace is in favour of war.

> The Bible teaches that we have the right to self defense, Exodus 22:2:
> "If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he
> dies, there will be no blood guiltiness on his account." The Bible
> also tells us to protect the innocent, Deut. 19:10, "So innocent blood
> will not be shed in the midst of your land which the Lord your God
> gives you as an inheritance, and blood guiltiness be on you." Also,
> see "Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons
> be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for
> his own sin," (Deut. 24:16). If we were to apply these principles to
> war, I would conclude that war is justifiable when it is in self
> defense and/or when it is to protect the innocent. Therefore, a
> Christian could rightfully engage in war given those conditions.

The bible does not teach such a thing. The bible taught that the Jews (to
whom the Mosaic Laws belong) were permitted to use physical force and to
resist evil. The bible teaches that Christians are not to return evil for
evil nor are they to resist evil.

You have fallen for that old trick of the devil which is to say that we are
not yet under Christ and that we must still have to do with an out-dated
covenant that saved not one soul.

> More on war

> We can see that war is not a sin in itself since in the Old Testament
> God sends people into war:

Again you are in error. We can see that war, when directly ordered by God of
the Jews was not sinful in itself. We are not Jews and God has not asked us
to do any such thing. Nor do we live in a theocracy.

snipped OT refs

> From this we can easily conclude that going to war is not a sin. That
> is, if it complies with the biblical instructions of self-defense and
> protection of the innocent.

We can conclude that what happened was not a sin, you may not conclude
anything that is contrary to the very words of Jesus. Just as you cannot
apply the parting of the Red Sea today and just stroll over it because we
are in a different situation so also you cannot apply what was to what is
and claim you have shown that it is applicable today.

> Furthermore, Christians are instructed to be in subjection to the
> governing authorities whose establishment is from God. This
> establishment has the right to declare war and to punish its
> citizenry, even by capital punishment.

There is no scripture that says they may either make war or kill anyone. It
says that they can and do. You would, of course, have handed Jews over to
the Nazis as they were the legitimate and established authority I expect?

We are subject to the authorities as far as we may be whilst honouring
Christ. There is no law against love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness,
meekness, kindness, temperance and faith. We must display those things at
all times and therefore we cannot obey any man or any man appointed order to
do something against those things.

The Apostles were told to do something by the legitimate authorities, they
did not do as they were told. Neither did the early Christians who belonged
to an illegal religion. They would not fight, would not take oaths and would
not do what Christ forbade no matter who told them they had to.

snip verses that show that we should obey the law as far as we may.

> Finally, notice that some soldiers approached John the Baptist and
> inquired about repentance. John did not tell them to stop being
> soldiers, but to do their jobs properly, honestly.

> "And some soldiers were questioning him, saying, "And what about
> us, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not take money from
> anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your
> wages," (Luke 3:14).

So Roman Soldiers, who were not allowed to leave when they wanted, were told
that were they? No they were not.

A proper translation would be "make no man afraid" or "do no violence" from
the root words meaning "cause" and "shake". They were told not tp make
people tremble or shake (that is to be afraid).

But regardless JtB was not Jesus but merely the man who prepared the way for
Christ. He was not worthy to tie the shoelaces of Jesus and Jesus taught
that all men should not return evil for evil and that all men should turn
the other cheek.

> From all of this, we can see that going to war is not wrong it itself
> and that a Christian can go to war under the right circumstances.

I note that they dare not quote Jesus as to whether war is alright because
he clearly taught that all such things are wickedness.

Phil

[James]

See below more information from people about Christians not serving in
the military.

>
>>Once Augustine endorsed 'just war' as authorizing
>>Christians' participation in military activities,
>>'just war' soon became whatever war their
>>government engaged in."
>
>Which has nothing to do with early Christians.
>
>>The historian Ernest William Barnes in "The
>>Rise of Christianity" wrote, "A careful review
>>of all the information available goes to show
>>that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius
>>[emperor from 161 to 180 C.E.], no Christian
>>became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming
>>a Christian, remained in military service."
>
>Earnest William Barnes was never an historian and his book was regarded as
>nonsense by actual historians.

Whether he was considered a historian, is up for grabs. He had enough
schooling and wrote at least one book on a history subject; Christians
in the military.

I don't know if it was considered "nonsense", but many did not agree
with his book.

Here is a lot more details (some of it briefly mentioned earlier).

"Those Known as Early Christians.

Early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army, in both the
legions and auxilia, considering such service as wholly incompatible
with the teachings of Christianity. Says Justin Martyr, of the second
century�C.E., in his �Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew� (CX): �We who were
filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each
through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,�our swords into
ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.� (The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254) In his treatise �The Chaplet, or
De Corona� (XI), when discussing �whether warfare is proper at all for
Christians,� Tertullian (c. 200�C.E.) argued from Scripture the
unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, �I banish
from us the military life.��The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III,
pp. 99, 100.
�A careful review of all the information available goes to show that,
until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180�C.E.], no Christian became

a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in

military service.� (The Rise of Christianity, by E.�W. Barnes, 1947,
p. 333) �It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence
of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165�A.D. is
exceedingly slight; .�.�. up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least,
no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.� (The Early
Church and the World, by C.�J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) �In the
second century, Christianity .�.�. had affirmed the incompatibility of
military service with Christianity.� (A Short History of Rome, by
G.�Ferrero and C.�Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) �The behavior of the
Christians was very different from that of the Romans.�.�.�. Since
Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.� (Our
World Through the Ages, by N.�Platt and M.�J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)
�The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not
serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.� (The New
World�s Foundations in the Old, by R.�and W.�M. West, 1929, p. 131)
�The Christians .�.�. shrank from public office and military service.�
(�Persecution of the Christians in Gaul,�A.D. 177,� by F.�P. G.�Guizot
in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R.�Johnson, 1905,
Vol. III, p. 246) �While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims
of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the
civil administration or the military defence of the empire.�.�.�. It
was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred
duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of
princes.��The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon,
Vol. I, p. 416."

Theology can be historical also. It all depends upon the subject under
discussion. For example, the Bible presents a lot of material about
ancient Babylon. It comes from a theological source but is relating
history.

>
>I deleted the rest of the post because you are replying to someone else.

I simply hit the reply button. If someone else is on there, then so be
it.

>
>So far you have supplied absolutely no evidence to support your view. Every bit
>of the evidence that I have presented supports the fact that there were early
>Christian soldiers. The few historians who disagree are pacifists who are
>trying to alter history by presenting their own personal beliefs as fact. If
>you go back to original source documents, you must come to the conclusion that
>there were early Christian soldiers.
>

It all depends upon how early you are talking about.

Just think about what you are saying. If we take Jesus' words as
commands for Christians, then Jesus words about 'love you neighbor'
(Mt 19:19b), 'love one that is your enemy' (Mt 5:44), and 'put back
your sword in its place' and 'those who use the sword die by the
sword' (Mt 26:52), how could a military man stay within the military,
if he had to obey Jesus' words. And that is what Jesus wants his
followers to do: Lu 6:46,

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

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 21, 12:52 pm, James <1ri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
>

> >In article <1hlhp8pmv7l2m0q61s3dallo36kisek...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
> >>Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>In article <nt9cp8pl71t6irlj5s7rr7kdkkgeljo...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
> >>>>Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>>>In article <h5o9p85r3iea9d0ccvobq5d3pjs2qv8...@4ax.com>, James says...
>
> >>>>>>Annointed Remnant <Annointed_mem...@newsguy.com>
> >>>>>>>In article <519270D6.6...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...
>
> >>>>>>>>Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> In article <51924FC8.7...@ix.netcom.com>, vince garcia says...

>
> >>>>>>>>> >Annointed Remnant wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> >> Your situation may be similar:  Maybe the
> >>>>>>>>> >> quoted historians were not aware of the
> >>>>>>>>> >> archaeological finds when they made their
> >>>>>>>>> >> statements, however for someone to use that
> >>>>>>>>> >> as "proof" when further evidence is discovered
> >>>>>>>>> >> is being dishonest.
>
> >>>>>>>>> >Even if that were true, that only shows JAMES'
> >>>>>>>>> >own illiteracy and arguable WILLING ignorance
> >>>>>>>>> >and refusal to have his beliefs challenged by
> >>>>>>>>> >studying the truth, rather than the word of
> >>>>>>>>> >"historians" that fits his agenda, a trait
> >>>>>>>>> >he's aleady shown me in his posts
>
> >>>>>>>>> From what newsgroup is he posting this stuff?
> >>>>>>>>> Copy and paste his historical evidence here and
> >>>>>>>>> I'll take a look at it.  The Watchtower often
> >>>>>>>>> quotes people whom they claim are experts in
> >>>>>>>>>their field but are not.
>
> >>>>>>>>Here is what james posted with the conclusion:
> >>>>>>>>"THUS THE BOTTOM LINE.  EARLY CHRISTIANS DID NOT
> >>>>>>>>ENGAGE IN WARS"
>
> >>>>>>>I came across this:
>

> >>>>>>>http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...

> century�C.E., in his �Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew� (CX): �We who were

> filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each

> through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,�our swords into
> ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage.� (The
> Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 254) In his treatise �The Chaplet, or
> De Corona� (XI), when discussing �whether warfare is proper at all for
> Christians,� Tertullian (c. 200�C.E.) argued from Scripture the
> unlawfulness even of a military life itself, concluding, �I banish
> from us the military life.��The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1957, Vol. III,
> pp. 99, 100.
> �A careful review of all the information available goes to show that,
> until the time of Marcus Aurelius [121-180�C.E.], no Christian became

> a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in

> military service.� (The Rise of Christianity, by E.�W. Barnes, 1947,
> p. 333) �It will be seen presently that the evidence for the existence
> of a single Christian soldier between 60 and about 165�A.D. is
> exceedingly slight; .�.�. up to the reign of Marcus Aurelius at least,
> no Christian would become a soldier after his baptism.� (The Early
> Church and the World, by C.�J. Cadoux, 1955, pp. 275, 276) �In the
> second century, Christianity .�.�. had affirmed the incompatibility of
> military service with Christianity.� (A Short History of Rome, by
> G.�Ferrero and C.�Barbagallo, 1919, p. 382) �The behavior of the
> Christians was very different from that of the Romans.�.�.�. Since
> Christ had preached peace, they refused to become soldiers.� (Our
> World Through the Ages, by N.�Platt and M.�J. Drummond, 1961, p. 125)
> �The first Christians thought it was wrong to fight, and would not
> serve in the army even when the Empire needed soldiers.� (The New
> World�s Foundations in the Old, by R.�and W.�M. West, 1929, p. 131)
> �The Christians .�.�. shrank from public office and military service.�
> (�Persecution of the Christians in Gaul,�A.D. 177,� by F.�P. G.�Guizot
> in The Great Events by Famous Historians, edited by R.�Johnson, 1905,
> Vol. III, p. 246) �While they [the Christians] inculcated the maxims

> of passive obedience, they refused to take any active part in the

> civil administration or the military defence of the empire.�.�.�. It

> was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred
> duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of

> princes.��The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by Edward Gibbon,

Genesis 9:6 - Whoso sheddeth man's blood,
by man shall his blood be shed:
for in the image of God made he man.

Exodus 21:12 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die,
shall be surely put to death.

> Just think about what you are saying. If we take Jesus' words as
> commands for Christians, then Jesus words about 'love you neighbor'
> (Mt 19:19b), 'love one that is your enemy' (Mt 5:44), and 'put back
> your sword in its place' and 'those who use the sword die by the
> sword' (Mt 26:52), how could a military man stay within the military,
> if he had to obey Jesus' words. And that is what Jesus wants his
> followers to do: Lu 6:46,
>
> "Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (NIV)
>

Rom.13
[1] Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God.
[2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God:
and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.
Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power?
do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
[4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good.
But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid;
for he beareth not the sword in vain:
for he is the minister of God,
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
[5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath,
but also for conscience sake.

When you refuse to bare arms for a legitimate ruler thou
" resisteth the ordinance of God"

You have been warned,now you have no excuse!

[Terry Cross]

On May 21, 1:05 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com"

<jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Genesis 9:6 - Whoso sheddeth man's blood,
> by man shall his blood be shed:
>  for in the image of God made he man.
>
> Exodus 21:12 - He that smiteth a man, so that he die,
>      shall be surely put to death.

And who is willing to inherit the curse of Genesis in order to obey
the commandment in Exodus?

TCross

[Joe~Bean Inc.]

"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cdd7b52e-9088-49c7...@y5g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

Jesus was very direct when he said to "love ones enemies" and "those
taking of the sword will die by the sword."

CJ

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So we should have LOVED Hitler and let him take over and control the world?
Or some other megalomaniac since his time? That makes sense to you? Jesus
had no idea people like Saddam or Hither would exist way after his own
death.

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>


> Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
> because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of God's
> revelation for what is right and what is wrong

Wrong--FALSE Christians like you think that.

REAL Christians go STRAIGHT to the Bible for moral guidance.

There's your problem right there, and the heart of your false doctrine.

Your "exegesis" = a philosophical, not real exegetitical approach, based
on your own esoteric inferences of Christ's words, rather than sound
hermeneutics

THAT'S why you're an abberation out of step with orthodoxy.

Thanks for confirming that by your words here, saying we don't need the
Bible; we just need to 'go by Jesus.'

You show your deception right there, and explain exactly why you're as
deceived as you are.

[vince garcia]

Of course. And the jews sould have been wiped out, and an Aryan empire
should have been established in Europe, and Hitler rule the UK where
Phil lives as a parasite, free because others fought and died to keep
the UK free from nazi tyranny


Also Phil, who just attacked the US for once having slavery, obviously
supports perpetual slvaery for blacks since he certainly opposes the
North fighting the South, so obviously he thinks slavery should have
continued without interruption by any sort of war between the states
that wound up ending it

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519C9C...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

>> Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
>> because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of God's
>> revelation for what is right and what is wrong

> Wrong--FALSE Christians like you think that.

Paul thought like that, he got his revelation directly from God. Jesus
thought like that, he got revelation directly from God.

> REAL Christians go STRAIGHT to the Bible for moral guidance.

Well then Paul was not a real Christian. But you snipped the important bit
to make a false point, sadly brother.

The bible is 66 books, there is no moral guidance for Christians in large
parts of those 66 books. We go to the gospels if we want to know what Jesus
taught directly.

> There's your problem right there, and the heart of your false doctrine.

I don't have a problem, thanks for the concern though :-

> Your "exegesis" = a philosophical, not real exegetitical approach, based
> on your own esoteric inferences of Christ's words, rather than sound
> hermeneutics

So when I say "The Law & The Prophets were until John" what is faulty about
my exegesis?
When I say that Jesus taught us a new way to live in the Sermon on the Mount
what is wrong with my exegesis?
When I say exactly the same words as Jesus what am I doing wrong exactly?

I don't need the masses and the winners of scandalous persecutions (the
orthodox churches) to tell me that a Christian cannot be a murderer or an
adulterer or a thief because Jesus already taught me all about that. I do
know not to do what they do (build temples, amass wealth and let the poor go
hungry, kill those who disagree with them) instead I do what Jesus said I
should do.

1) Do no swear oaths
2) Do not divorce
3) Do no return evil for evil
4) Do not resist evil
5) Do not angry

I am sure readers will know that I have not always seen these things but
Jesus has revealed them to me and the truth that living in them exceeds the
righteousness of the Pharisees.

> THAT'S why you're an abberation out of step with orthodoxy.

As was Jesus. That is why they hated him and killed him. Is that why you
hate me brother?

> Thanks for confirming that by your words here, saying we don't need the
> Bible; we just need to 'go by Jesus.'

I did not say that but, as you were intent on attacking me you missed what i
did say.

> You show your deception right there, and explain exactly why you're as
> deceived as you are.

So of the things I have said can you show me, from the bible, that they are
wrong?

Peace

Phil

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

On May 22, 1:22 pm, <philip.saund...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

" I do what Jesus said I should do."

The Rich Young Ruler
Mt. 19.17-21

17 ¶ And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one
running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I
do that I may inherit eternal life?
18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none
good but one, that is, God.
19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Ex. 20.14
· Deut. 5.18 Do not kill, Ex. 20.13 · 0.1--0.1 ; 0.5 ; 7.1--0.1 Do not
steal, Ex. 20.15 · Deut. 5.19 Do not bear false witness, Ex. 20.16 ·
Deut. 5.20 Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. Ex. 20.12 · Deut.
5.16
20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I
observed from my youth.
21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing
thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the
poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the
cross, and follow me.

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

Old Testament Law:

Deuteronomy 6:5
And thou shalt love the LORD thy God
with all thine heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy might.

Leviticus 19:18
But the stranger that dwelleth with you
shall be unto you as one born among you,
and thou shalt love him as thyself;
for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt:
I am the LORD your God.

Deuteronomy 10:19
Love ye therefore the stranger:
for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

New Testament:
John 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.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <3%imt.6930$uT3....@newsfe20.iad>, <philip....@ntlworld.com>
says...

But still a virgin... OK, Mr. Virgin, are you ashamed of being a Christian? If
not, then tell me what you are. Are you denying Christ?

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519C9C...@ix.netcom.com...
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >> Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
> >> because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of God's
> >> revelation for what is right and what is wrong
>
> > Wrong--FALSE Christians like you think that.
>
> Paul thought like that, he got his revelation directly from God. Jesus
> thought like that, he got revelation directly from God.
>
> > REAL Christians go STRAIGHT to the Bible for moral guidance.
>
> Well then Paul was not a real Christian. But you snipped the important bit
> to make a false point, sadly brother.
>
> The bible is 66 books, there is no moral guidance for Christians in large
> parts of those 66 books. We go to the gospels if we want to know what Jesus
> taught directly.
>
> > There's your problem right there, and the heart of your false doctrine.
>
> I don't have a problem, thanks for the concern though :-
>
> > Your "exegesis" = a philosophical, not real exegetitical approach, based
> > on your own esoteric inferences of Christ's words, rather than sound
> > hermeneutics
>
> So when I say "The Law & The Prophets were until John" what is faulty about
> my exegesis?

The fact you INTENTIONALLY or IGNORANTLY leave out the next line that
blows you out of the water:

since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth
into it.


John came to announce and preach the principles of the kingdom of God,
not preach as an old testament prophet as you seem to believe

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men
through him might believe.
He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.


You illustrate again here bad hermeneutics by seeming to think John came
to preach the old covenant when he came to proclaim the Kingdom of God
and the principles in the new, because you doesn't understand enough
greek to understand how the word Heos (until) is used because you
apparently have not studied biblical greek or you wouldn't have said
what you just said

Let me give it to you in the NLT translation for you to show what you're
clearly misunderstanding:

For BEFORE John came, all the teachings of the Scriptures looked forward
to this present time.

Did you get it? BEFORE john came. It's written that way because of the
word HEOS which you don't understand how to use properly with or without
a dictionary to help you. You, with your BAD hermeneutics clearly think
"The Law & The Prophets were until John" means: "UP TO AND INCLUDING
JOHN'S COMING, the law and the prophets were in effect and taught, and
only after Jesus came was teachings of the kingdom of God taught "

THAT sort of thing is what's faulty with your so-called exegesis.

Jesus didn't originate the teachings of the new covenant kingdom of
God--they started with John, and Jesus continued with them



I'll leave off with repeating your approach to hermenutics:

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"Annointed Remnant" wrote in message news:knjqa...@drn.newsguy.com...

In article <3%imt.6930$uT3....@newsfe20.iad>,
<philip....@ntlworld.com>
says...
>"Annointed Remnant" wrote in message news:knbci...@drn.newsguy.com...
>In article <Xdamt.1905$u_4....@newsfe09.iad>,
><philip....@ntlworld.com>

>>>>In WWII for instance 70 million people died, most were civilians who
>>>>were
>>>>bombed, shelled and killed in the crossfire. The soldiers who were
>>>>shelling
>>>>and bombing innocent civilians knew that there were innocent civilians
>>>>there
>>>>and they would be killed. Is that not murder? How can bombing women and
>>>>children not be murder friend? We even bombed France where the
>>>>population
>>>>were our allies! Was it not murder when we bombed factories where we
>>>>knew
>>>>the workers were Jews who were forced to work there on pain of torture
>>>>and
>>>>death?

>>> You haven't reached puberty yet, have
>>> you, son? No, I get it; you're a 33
>>> year old virgin Jehovah's Witness!

>>Not a JW, not a child, and I forgive you :-)

>>Phil

> But still a virgin... OK, Mr. Virgin, are you ashamed of being a
> Christian? If
> not, then tell me what you are. Are you denying Christ?

I must tell my children that, it seems another miracle has occurred :-)

I am a Christian, and certainly not ashamed of it.

Phil

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

vince garcia" wrote in message news:519D7B...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

>> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519C9C...@ix.netcom.com...
>> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

snip

>> So when I say "The Law & The Prophets were until John" what is faulty
>> about
>> my exegesis?

> The fact you INTENTIONALLY or IGNORANTLY leave out the next line that
> blows you out of the water:

> since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth
> into it.

I left out the preceding verses as well because the part I quoted is clear
and nothing that precedes it or follows it changes the meaning of what I
quoted.

> John came to announce and preach the principles of the kingdom of God,
> not preach as an old testament prophet as you seem to believe

John came to prepare the Jews to prepare the way for the Messiah.

> There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
> The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the light, that all men
> through him might believe.
> He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

So exactly what I think is true is in fact true. John (a Jew) who lived
under the Jewish Law came to get the people ready for Jesus.

> You illustrate again here bad hermeneutics by seeming to think John came
> to preach the old covenant when he came to proclaim the Kingdom of God
> and the principles in the new, because you doesn't understand enough
> greek to understand how the word Heos (until) is used because you
> apparently have not studied biblical greek or you wouldn't have said
> what you just said

John did not declare the principles of the new at all, he came to declare
that the Messiah was coming.

> Let me give it to you in the NLT translation for you to show what you're
> clearly misunderstanding:

The NLT is not a translation of merit. It is a not even a proper translation
at all. Quoting it is merely quoting the opinions of the author of the NLT.

> For BEFORE John came, all the teachings of the Scriptures looked forward
> to this present time.

> Did you get it? BEFORE john came. It's written that way because of the
> word HEOS which you don't understand how to use properly with or without
> a dictionary to help you. You, with your BAD hermeneutics clearly think
> "The Law & The Prophets were until John" means: "UP TO AND INCLUDING
> JOHN'S COMING, the law and the prophets were in effect and taught, and
> only after Jesus came was teachings of the kingdom of God taught "

> THAT sort of thing is what's faulty with your so-called exegesis.

> Jesus didn't originate the teachings of the new covenant kingdom of
> God--they started with John, and Jesus continued with them

You are, again, quite wrong about what I think. Until means excluding what
comes after. John was not preaching the Law and the Prophets. He preached
repentance and preparation. He di not preach the gospel but instead he
preached if the impending arrival of the Messiah.

> I'll leave off with repeating your approach to hermenutics:

Because you don't understand plain English. I say it plainly and you pretend
I said something else.

Phil

[vince garcia]

Stop trying to bluff out your own ignorance.

Fact remains you're a fool who looks at the words and doesn't know what
he's doing or what he's talking about.

I gave you that version simply BECAUSE you have so juvenile a level of
understanding, so I dumbed it down for you as much as I felt I had to in
order to try and help you try to learn how ignorant you are, but of
course it's a lost cause.

Like every false teacher, you're unteachable:

>Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
> because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of
> God's revelation for what is right and what is wrong

I've wasted as much of my precious time with you as I'm willing to.

A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
of himself.

[philip....@ntlworld.com]

"vince garcia" wrote in message news:519DEE...@ix.netcom.com...

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> vince garcia" wrote in message news:519D7B...@ix.netcom.com...
>
> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>
> >> "vince garcia" wrote in message news:519C9C...@ix.netcom.com...
> >> philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:

snip

>> The NLT is not a translation of merit. It is a not even a proper
>> translation
>> at all. Quoting it is merely quoting the opinions of the author of the
>> NLT.

> Stop trying to bluff out your own ignorance.

You are a very rude sort of chap aren't you? I forgive you, as all
Christians would.

> Fact remains you're a fool who looks at the words and doesn't know what
> he's doing or what he's talking about.

And yet Jesus said that calling someone that is to put yourself on the route
to hell. Are you happy to always be insulting people?

> I gave you that version simply BECAUSE you have so juvenile a level of
> understanding, so I dumbed it down for you as much as I felt I had to in
> order to try and help you try to learn how ignorant you are, but of
> course it's a lost cause.

So you made a mistake and instead of using a reputable translation you used
the NLT. I expect you didn't know that I would know that it is not a proper
translation at all.

> Like every false teacher, you're unteachable:

Well I cannot be taught that the clear words of Jesus are wrong and that
your words are right. However I can be taught, but like all Christians I
have to guard against false teachers who by their deeds show what they are
really like inside. You are a person who always thinks the worst you can,
insults freely and is unrepentant of it but rather makes excuses for the
wickedness you do.

>>Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
>> because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of
>> God's revelation for what is right and what is wrong

> I've wasted as much of my precious time with you as I'm willing to.

Why is your time precious? Are you an important person? Are there other
people you need to malign and insult?

> A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
> Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned
> of himself.

And yet you have shown not one heresy of which I am guilty according to the
scriptures.

With Martin Luther I profess that the scriptures are all I will accept and
not the extra scriptural doctrines that were alien to Jesus and his
disciples.

Regards

Phil

[vince garcia]

philip....@ntlworld.com wrote:
>

> Christians do not have to look at "the bible" for their moral guidance
> because we have the teaching of Jesus which is the purest form of God's
> revelation for what is right and what is wrong
>

Bad as THAT bit of heresy is, here is the sort of demon, masquerading as
Christ, that mr saunders follows:

> "No man has at any time seen God" Who said that? Jesus. So if Jesus is
> God, as you say, then either he wasn't at Mamre or he was at Mamre
> and he forgot.

THAT is the line of reasoning of false Christain movements from the JWs
to the LDS.


> ...Here is the whole [of Philo's] text and it does not in any
> way suggest a trinity.

So there it is--denial of Christ's deity and the Trinity.

Remember how I said we have an endless list of Armstrongites, JWs, LDS,
Messianics, and other false teachers and cultists denouncing orthodoxy,
and boasting about how they and their cults have the "real" truth--and
how I said mr Saunders was in the same boat?

Well, we see now I was right as always. I can detect them a mile away.

He has the lamnguage down. He talks about what he's done for Christ, how
he's been persecuted, how he'll love the unlovely...all fine things.

But when we look at the sort of Christ he really follows, we see that
Christ is NOT the Christ of the Bible and orthodox Christianity. It is a
"different Jesus" who is not fully God


Unfortunately, that's called "counterfeit Christianty"

And a counteffeit has no value no matter how good it looks.


>it does not in any way suggest a trinity.

>Why do you deny that what Jesus said is true?

Deception wouldn't be deception if you weren't deceived

Philip, you are a good man. But you have yet to come to the truth. Your
PHILOSPHY is on par with man aspects of Christianity, but you THEOLOGY
is not.

[Annointed Remnant]

In article <O4jnt.12851$zQ6....@fx09.am4>, <philip....@ntlworld.com>

That's nice. My question was and still is, what flavor of Christian are you?
What you write comes directly out of Watchtower material. Why are you hiding
your light under a basket, Mr. Christian?