Posted on 10/31/2006 6:09:07 AM PST by NYer
Excellent post.
Please remember that when John Kerry made his little talk against our troops the other day, he was really just stating how the democrats really feel about getting back into power.
If they win this election they will make it so hard to win this war against people who would behead a little 14 year old Christian boy. None of us will be safe if that happens. God bless that little boy for serving our Lord Jesus.
Well said. Of course, our resident MSM lover will probably continue to cling to his straw man argument about the MSM specifically advocating beheadings.
Someone has an industrial accident and it makes news for days in this country.
Why this kind of barbarism isn't put on the front page of every world newspaper for weeks/months until it is stamped out is beyond me.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Prayers lifted...
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given for inspiration, for doctrine... So, if one believes that both the Sermon on the Mount means what it says, and Luke 22:38 ("So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough.") means whaat it says, too; then the answer is they are both right. Ours is to discover how they are both right. Indeed, Jesus gave the Sermon on the Mount first, then later on, at the Last Supper, He gave the apostles His final instructions before He went to His betrayal by Judas. His instructions?
Seems pretty plain to me. "Boys, earlier you didn't need to carry money or even shoes. Now, things are different. Take money with you. Get a sword. In fact, if you don't have a sword, sell your garment and buy one." If that isn't a call to self-defence, there isn't much more that would suffice as one.
So is this inconsistent with the Sermon on the Mount? Scholars have debated this, as for me, I go with Luke 22 means what Luke 22 says.
I think Boxer is actually Jewish, but are the rest of these people really Christians? I doubt it.
I ask this literally, not rhetorically: are you saying that the Luke passage abrogates the Sermon on the Mount? All those teachings (the related ones, in any event) were in effect for the very, very short period between the time the speech was given and the night Jesus was betrayed?
They were Islamists and turned him in to their militia. No proof, but will anyone ever know?
A fine question. I am not saying that the Luke passage negates the Sermon on the Mount. Neither does the Sermon on the Mount negate the Luke passage. Jesus spoke to the masses, and gave them the SoM. He spoke to the apostles and told them to carry a piece. So is this contradictory? I don't feel so; rather, it is complementary.
The ideas here in Proverbs are complimentary, you need to use a bit of wisdom, a bit of prayer, and apply the appropriate one. Sermon on the Mount and Luke? Complimentary, not contradictory. Use some commons sense, give it a bit of prayer. God tell you to carry some heat going down a dark alley? Do it. He tell you to carry nothing other than a pocket New Testament? Do it.
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.