Ironically, your behaviour mirrors the atheist. I just posed a question. I did not make a statement. Interesting response, though. What was (or were) your former screen name(s) here?
Posted on 05/02/2013 6:40:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
That you're as out of touch as he, but on different subjects?
Pictures, or it's not true.
“That you’re as out of touch as he, but on different subjects?”
Ironically, you’re behaving just like the atheist. Except, you’re misrepresenting me because you’re a Catholic and I am not.
And you take this to mean?
I start preparing for it tonight.
But Jesus points out that he (the man of noble birth) would not immediately be exerting power as king. So he leaves his minas or spiritual interests in the hands of his slaves (disciples), upon return as king Jesus settles accounts, his disciples were to use what they had been taught, the good news, to make more disciples in proportion to what they had received. To those who failed to use what they had their mina would be taken away from them and given to the productive disciples.
As Jesus said to that Jewish nation that had had the kingdom in their future, he took it away from them and gave it to a nation producing it's fruit. That stood as a warning. Produce the the fruitage of the kingdom or lose it.
Jesus would send his disciples out make more disciple, to teach “this good news of the kingdom”.
But the message had to be his message, not whatever they chose. Those who tried to decide what their ministry was to be whether powerful works done in his name or expelling demons, Jesus called them lawless, they weren't following him. “I never knew you”. And then there were the poisonous weeds of Matt. 13.
Jesus doesn't tell the slaves with the minas to slaughter his enemies but says that to “those standing by”. Who might that be?
Matt. 13:30, 39. The reapers, angels charged with the harvest, no executional role assigned to his disciples, not even doing the harvesting.
That's some of my input for what it's worth.
I'm talking about being unwilling to defend themselves, and relying on the police to do so, while feeling so superior in their righteousness over those who use violence to protect them.
In Jesus' time, the Roman army wasn't bothering subjects who paid their taxes and didn't oppose their rule. Thus it was viable for early Christians to be pacifists.
Then Rome fell. Bandits roamed the land, pirates roamed the seas, and anybody who could not defend himself, nor was under the protection of a warlord, faced extermination. Christian philosophy had to change for the circumstances or face extinction.
Then there's the passage of Jesus telling his apostles to have a sword or two among their gear, to defend against bandits.
“In Jesus’ time, the Roman army wasn’t bothering subjects who paid their taxes and didn’t oppose their rule. Thus it was viable for early Christians to be pacifists.”
Well...there is John the Baptist, Jesus himself, the other apostles, generally all those who wouldn’t worship the Roman emperor, sounds like bothering to me.
“Christian philosophy had to change for the circumstances or face extinction.”
Apparently a Jewish Pharisee understood God’s power more than your comment indicates you do. (Acts 5:33-40) ‘If this work is from God men will not be able to overthrow it’.
Thank you.
Ironically, your behaviour mirrors the atheist. I just posed a question. I did not make a statement. Interesting response, though. What was (or were) your former screen name(s) here?
Nope. You either made a typo of Reformers instead of RCC, or you don't know much about the Reformers. It would appear to be the former because you don't get it quite right about the Anabaptists believe of baptism either.
The title ANA-BAPTIST well describes their meaning.
Your great error was in stating that Reformers believed that baptism has anything to do with salvation. That is false statement. It appears then that you don’t understand the very basics about the Reformation.
Why did many of the reformers insist on infant baptism?
“Ironically, your behaviour mirrors the atheist. I just posed a question. I did not make a statement. Interesting response, though. What was (or were) your former screen name(s) here?”
So I was right. This is a Catholic/Protestant grudge from a previous thread. Just know that annoying me here won’t make your life easier the next time you have to defend your religion.
So what was (were) your former screen name(s)?
Calvin believed that infants MUST be baptized.
“So what was (were) your former screen name(s)?”
As soon as you tell me your current screen name over at DUh, my stalker friend.
I don’t have a screen name at DUh. Never have, never will. So what was/were your screen name(s) at FR?
“I don’t have a screen name at DUh.”
Thou protests too much. So what is your screen name at DUh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.