Enemies

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Pastor Dave said:

Luke 22:35-36 King James Version (KJV)

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.

Once again, context.

 

³⁶ He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 

 

³⁷ It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’^]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

 

³⁸ The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied

 

 

Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

A following scene shows Jesus being arrested. The followers ask if they should attack with their swords. One does, cutting off an ear. Jesus orders the violence to stop and he heals the ear. Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

Edited October 22, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 10/17/2017 at 4:22 PM, ULCneo said:

 

Id disagree with that point- the law of Gravity is quite divine,  1. as it is impossible to explain exactly WHY gravity exists in the first place, outside the INTELLIGENT notion that its probably NOT a good idea for people to go floating off the face of the planet. (which, in some cases, I think not to be the wisest thing in the world, but there is a difference between intelligence and wisdom.) Hence, Gravity is by intelligent design, outside of the extremely minute chance of the multiple coincidences that would have to exist in order for gravity to exist in the first place, if not of intelligent design.  2.  Hence, basic reasoning implies creationism, outside the one in practically infinity chance that all of these things coexist by luck and probability. Also, The term outside is not relative, rather it is contextual to the noun to which it applies. Basic English 101: A preposition CANNOT be relative.

 

1.  Gravity is a physics question.  Physics is concerned with "what".  Not "why".

 

2.  No.  It doesn't.  This is a baseless assertion.

 

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Once again, context.

 

³⁶ He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 

 

³⁷ It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’^]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

 

³⁸ The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied

 

 

Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

A following scene shows Jesus being arrested. The followers ask if they should attack with their swords. One does, cutting off an ear. Jesus orders the violence to stop and he heals the ear. Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

 

 

There is a complication.  The man who cuts off the ear is Peter -- the chief disciple.  

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

The context of the passage makes it fairly clear that the meaning is not literal.

In the scene in question, Jesus is sending people out to preach in a dangerous world and warning them that they will make a lot of enemies by doing it. The actual instructions to his followers are extremely pacifist in nature, yet he warns that others will be violent, and gives assurances that the cause is worth suffering and dying for. After all, what does that whole "take up your cross" thing mean , if not to accept  unjust persecution, as opposed to avoiding it or fighting it?

 

  Maybe.  

[mererdog]

On 10/22/2017 at 9:13 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There is a complication.  The man who cuts off the ear is Peter -- the chief disciple.  

Complication, or clue?

 

Directly before the bit Pastor Dave originally quoted is

 

³¹ “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 

 

³² But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”

 

³³ But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.”

 

³⁴ Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

 

Peter claims to be willing to suffer and die for Jesus. Why would he think Jesus wants that of him? We later see Peter use violence and deception while attempting to avoid that same suffering and death. Role modeling, or cautionary tale?

Edited October 23, 2017 by mererdog

[Brother Kaman]

Peter would seem to be just like the rest of us. We are all quick to flap our jaws as to what we would do under a certain set of circumstances until we actually face said circumstance.

Edited October 23, 2017 by Brother Kaman
Spelling

[mererdog]

12 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

Peter would seem to be just like the rest of us. We are all quick to flap our jaws as to what we would do under a certain set of circumstances until we actually face said circumstance.

A corollary is the often repeated mantra "And I won't feel guilty about it, either!"

Personally, I try not to be that guy. As with everything, I am not 100% effective at it. The fact that I try is comforting, though.

Edited October 24, 2017 by mererdog

[ULCneo]

On 10/22/2017 at 7:37 AM, mererdog said:

Once again, context.

 

³⁶ He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 

 

³⁷ It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’^]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

 

³⁸ The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”

“That’s enough!” he replied

 

 

Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

A following scene shows Jesus being arrested. The followers ask if they should attack with their swords. One does, cutting off an ear. Jesus orders the violence to stop and he heals the ear. Two swords were enough. Enough for what?

 

     (Luke 22:36) He that hath a purse, let him take it.—The word translated to the English “purse” is the same as in Luke 10:4. If the words had stopped short of the “sword,” we could have received their literal meaning without difficulty. They would have seemed to counsel the prudence which provides for want, instead of a simple trust, as before, in the providence of God, and so would have sanctioned all equitable forms of Church organization and endowment.

The mention of the “sword,” however, introduces a new element of thought. Our Lord’s words to Peter (Matthew 26:52) show that the disciples were not meant to use it in His defense. It is not likely that He would teach them to use it in their own, as they preached the gospel of the Kingdom. True teachers felt afterwards that the weapons of their warfare were not carnal (2Corinthians 10:4). What follows supplies a probable explanation:

 

          The Master knew that two of the disciples (Peter and another) had brought swords with them, and with that acceptance of the thoughts of others which we have so often traced, He sadly, and yet, as it were, with the gentle sympathy with which a man speaks to those who are children in age or character, conveyed His warnings in the form which met their fears and hopes. If they meant to trust in swords, a time was coming when they would sorely need them. However, the expression was not meant to be taken with unintelligent literalness. It was in accordance with that kind metaphorical method of expression which our blessed Lord adopted that His words might never be forgotten. It was to warn them of days of hatred and opposition in which self-defense might become a daily necessity, though, in no uncertain terms, not aggression. To infer that the latter is implied has been one of the fatal errors which arise from attributing infallibility to wrong inferences from a superstitious letter-worship.
 

Edited October 26, 2017 by ULCneo

[mererdog]

"Articles, texts, and any other information not written by the poster must be properly credited to the author of said work. You are permitted to post articles, so long as they are within the scope of the forum policies. If you did not write the article in question, you must provide the author's name and source of the article. (A link will do, where applicable.) Posts that do not have proper sourcing information will be removed at admin discretion."

Forum Copyright Infringement Policy

Edited October 26, 2017 by mererdog

[ULCneo]

18 hours ago, mererdog said:

"Articles, texts, and any other information not written by the poster must be properly credited to the author of said work. You are permitted to post articles, so long as they are within the scope of the forum policies. If you did not write the article in question, you must provide the author's name and source of the article. (A link will do, where applicable.) Posts that do not have proper sourcing information will be removed at admin discretion."

Forum Copyright Infringement Policy

 

I find that amusing. Someone has obviously been legally misinformed. Its amazing how many people don't know that Churches are NOT subject to the provisions of copyright law due to the separation clause.

[mererdog]

6 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

I find that amusing.

Yet they are the rules you agreed to when you accepted the TOS, and the rules that determine whether Brother Kevin will continue to be willing to host your posts on the servers he pays for.

[VonNoble]

16 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

I find that amusing. Someone has obviously been legally misinformed. Its amazing how many people don't know that Churches are NOT subject to the provisions of copyright law due to the separation clause.

 

I ran this by the attorney representing our church for the past ten years.    He was amused too.   He told me if there is every a copyright usage question re: the church to call him immediately as there are many instances where we would be required to seek permission before usage of copyrighted material.....then he reminded me free legal advise is worth the price.   He has an excellent sense of humor - especially for an attorney.    von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 hours ago, ULCneo said:

 

I find that amusing. Someone has obviously been legally misinformed. Its amazing how many people don't know that Churches are NOT subject to the provisions of copyright law due to the separation clause.

 

At minimum, we are all subject to ridicule, for being caught at plagiarism.       

 

It is also the case, that a plagiarist minister, brings disgrace upon his church.        You wouldn't want to do that, would you?     

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

 

I ran this by the attorney representing our church for the past ten years.    He was amused too.   He told me if there is every a copyright usage question re: the church to call him immediately as there are many instances where we would be required to seek permission before usage of copyrighted material.....then he reminded me free legal advise is worth the price.   He has an excellent sense of humor - especially for an attorney.    von

On another forum, I was in a discussion about water department fees, particularly late fees, disconnects, and recharging deposits after the disconnect.  The person I was debating went on and on about how they were trying to help others.  They had talked to the water dept and gotten this information first hand.  Their numbers just didn't add up, of course.  Their story changed.  I called the town in questions water dept and found out he had been harassing them, they told me the policy.  I posted that to the forum, and he hasn't posted again in any topic.

It's amazing how going to the source can do that sometimes.

[cuchulain]

2 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

At minimum, we are all subject to ridicule, for being caught at plagiarism.       

 

It is also the case, that a plagiarist minister, brings disgrace upon his church.        You wouldn't want to do that, would you?     

I think of plagiarism as a form of theft.  Many do.

Thou shalt not steal, ULCneo.

[ULCneo]

3 hours ago, VonNoble said:

 

I ran this by the attorney representing our church for the past ten years.    He was amused too.   He told me if there is every a copyright usage question re: the church to call him immediately as there are many instances where we would be required to seek permission before usage of copyrighted material.....then he reminded me free legal advise is worth the price.   He has an excellent sense of humor - especially for an attorney.    von

Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, ULCneo said:

Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.

 

 

Interesting.  You think the clergy are beyond the reach of government prosecution?     

 

Would you care to put that to the test?     

 

 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

It's amazing how going to the source can do that sometimes.

 

Thanks for the support....

I KNOW the attorney and KNOW the attorney's credential. 

I am very comfortable trusting that particular attorney.    

von

[VonNoble]

3 hours ago, ULCneo said:

Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.

 

 

Knowing this attorney for more than a decade - I am reasonably sure - he is not likely to have overlooked or forgotten anything when discussing law.   He is pretty dang sharp.    That is just my opinion of him...but that opinion was forged and formed by seeing him in action for quire awhile. 

von 

[ULCneo]

1 hour ago, VonNoble said:

 

Knowing this attorney for more than a decade - I am reasonably sure - he is not likely to have overlooked or forgotten anything when discussing law.   He is pretty dang sharp.    That is just my opinion of him...but that opinion was forged and formed by seeing him in action for quire awhile. 

von 

Well, apparently, he doesn't know the law, evidently. This is really actually rather BASIC theory, if one cares to actually look it up.