Posted on 12/02/2014 2:48:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Let me try that again with the correct word:
I assume you meant (not “mention”) that response for someone else. Otherwise, it is a total non-sequitur.
I’d like to blame a spellchecker but it was totally on me.
Not to start a hub bub but Paul is right about many things, Jesus was talking about our personal lives.
We did not have Christians running the world back then so it is an entirely different situation, Paul might not be a good man to handle the present situation but he was not wrong about every thing.
Here is something I find interesting.
Jesus told his apostles to buy swords, but then he said three is enough, why?
It was not in his plan that any of the apostles be killed or taken.
We can imagine what may have happened if all of the apostles had of been armed, they would have been too confident and there would have been a big fight.
Some of the apostles could have been killed and maybe Jesus would not have been arrested.
What if they never had any swords? if there had been no one armed they would have all been taken and most likely all hanged on a cross.
By the apostles just having three swords they were not really that confident but since they did have three swords the other side were also not that confident and were willing to just take Jesus and let the others go.
What does that mean?
“Jesus told his apostles to buy swords, but then he said three is enough, why?”
I think because it was just a symbolic gesture. He was to be “counted among the transgressors”, was the prophecy, and if you look at the Hebrew word used in Isaiah for “transgressor” it carries the sense of “rebel”. In fact, that was one of the accusations laid against Jesus, that he was instigating a revolt against the Roman authorities. Well, you can’t very well be a rebel if you don’t have any weapons.
He was to be “counted among the transgressors”,
Also the weapons could be symbolic but secularly speaking the number of weapons could have a lot to do with how his arrest turned out.
We are to submit to governing authorities, but Romans 13:1-2 refers to all governing authorities (whether civil, church, family, individual & others). Civil government can and will attempt to assign itself jurisdiction over everything, but Christians should reject this humanist concept, which effectively replaces God with civil government. Civil government has a Biblical jurisdiction largely limited to punishing crime (murder, theft and the like) and enforcing contracts. Nowhere in Ephesians 5 do I see any stipulation that my authority as a father and a husband is subject to civil government authority or permission.
I cannot speak for Ron Paul’s interpretation of the Bible, but the most committed Christians that I can think of (who have separated themselves from much of the trash that today’s self-styled Christians seem to have embraced)- the Reformed Christians known as Amish - live peaceful family lives and do not participate in foreign wars to my knowledge.
One thing I am certain of: doing anything based on lies, deception, theft, taking advantage of others is unBiblical. Any wars or conflicts fought under false pretenses and without justification are to be strictly avoided and not supported by Christians. What I perceive from modern evangelicals though, is the exact opposite: a knee jerk support for military interventionism. Moreover, by and large evangelicals seem to embrace the humanist interpretation of Romans 13:1-2.
Ultimately the Republic will not survive if Christians embrace lies and faulty theology.
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.