Posted on 08/08/2014 7:44:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Please tell exactly which Apostles left behind widows and orphans.
And tell us which ones endangered anyone.
Since everyone who converted to Christianity was subject to the death penalty, they "endangered" everyone to whom they preached.
“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.” -Matthew 8:14
Matthew 19:27Peter answered him, “We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?”
28Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.
He’s not talking about getting married and then deserting a spouse to seek the life of a missionary
He’s talking about leaving a person/family who would bring the apostle away from Him.
You said the Apostles left their spouses and children.
I’m not going to argue bible interpretation with you
I can say marriage is a vocation in my religion and is not to be deserted that’s all
Ok. Ugh. Getting Ebola is holy now? It’s for the cause
I think these passages are just a few that speak to the cost of discipleship. It sometimes leads to martyrdom. In this passage Jesus affirms that the gospel has priority over family. That’s affirmed again and again throughout scripture.
Did Mother Theresa waste her life? Ann Coulter would say so. There were plenty of Albanians to minister to.
So what you are saying is that married men should not be soldiers. Married men should not be firemen. Married men should not be epidemiologists or archaelologists. The list goes on.
FWIW more Americans have died in automobile accidents in the last month than all the people in Africa that have contracted Ebola. So by your logic, married men should not drive.
Ann is one of a kind. That’s the best I can say.
I was very clear in a previous post re the difference
Oh that explains everything
Well, all due respect to my Lutheran brethren, if you could just cite from the bible the question that I posed. It should be simple
I cited from Matthew a passage about St Peter’s wife. I also had Peter asking Jesus about the sacrifice being made by him and Jesus’ other followers. Jesus said to Peter that those who lost any number of things, including wives, would be rewarded for their faithfulness.
So, what we have is Jesus affirming sacrifice on behalf of the kingdom of God. This is not new. It is a long-standing principle of the church. Sacrifice on behalf of our Lord is viewed by the Lord himself as a positive thing.
You didn’t cite any passage to me
Which one is it?
He did. However, even so, would it make any difference?
. Why don't you cite the passage where Jesus commands married men NOT to go into the whole world and preach the Gospel? Cite the passage where Jesus said that he would not call his married disciples to be sent to places where they would be killed or face death for his name's sake.
Today Christians are being beheaded for not denying Christ. Using your logic, those married Christians who are confronted by Islamonazis who demand they convert or die, should, for the same of their marriage, denounce Christ rather than die as a witness to Christ.
Jesus knows the number of our days and the number of hairs on our heads. He calls many to be sent into areas where there is danger and calls on many to as risk everything including their lives as a calling and witness. Getting married does not exempt anyone from being called upon to give everything to Christ. It doesn't mean that your calling may not end in your death. Your insistence that a doctor would not be called by Christ to minister to Ebola victims or lepers is contrary to the clear teachings of scripture.
We're done here.
Thanks.
Just saying in my religion it is not part of marriage to go off to a dangerous place, leaving the spouse and child behind, endangering oneself and then bringing the danger back home, and rendering oneself unable to participate in the marriage.
It’s just a passing comment, someone pounced on it, citing some religious tradition and two days later there’s no clarification, just still a lot of snark.
If other religions say it’s fine to get married then go off to devote one’s life to others, fine.
But to say those practices should be recognized as universally correct, citing some general knowledge, I’m just going to ask for the reference instead of blindly taking it as gospel.
That’s all.
see post #63. it is to you.
I contend God places people in a context to best effect a teaching of the Gospel in the social context in which they are relevant.
Now, that said, if a church were to raise up into a Missionary - this in itself is relevant, as the Missionary becomes relevant to the community at hand.....In this context, mission trips can be a huge help.
but far too many mission trips lack the needed anchor of a dedicated Missionary.
pearls before swine - see my 78 for clarification
see 78 for clarification - have a great day
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.