More on Jesus and government programs.

Libertas ^ | 3/14/09 | FreeMike

[freemike]

We hear a lot about the poor and those going through hard times. I remember it wasn’t long ago some politicians were attempting to use the name of Jesus to sell their government programs. Implying or outright saying Jesus would support government programs for the poor,, Jesus would tax the rich,, I even heard some were saying Jesus would drive a Hybrid.

The question is,, is it morally right to accept government programs when you know the money that is paying for those programs has been forcibly taken from another? A practical example would be,, to accept a stimulus check,,, morally,, before Jesus Christ,, is it right to accept that check when you have not paid any taxes yourself and you know the money came from those who have. In other words,, wealth distribution. The government taking money from one group,, the tax payer, and giving it to another group, those who do not pay taxes.

[ChurtleDawg]

taxes are not the same as theft.

Even Jesus acknowledged the civil authorities had the right to tax the population in his “render unto Caesar” discourse.

You can make arguments about policies, but saying that taxation is theft is erroneous. The Government has the right to garnish part of your money for the public good-—it is the price of citizenship and it pays to keep order and protect the public.

[OneVike]

Personally, I reject the notion that a merciful God can be accepted alongside the simultaneous notion that babies are born with a sinful stain, from which it follows logically that if they die before “accepting Christ” they go to hell. Do you (accept that notion, that is)? That would be an awfully cruel state of nature in which to live.

You are wrong in your assumption of what is Catholic dogma and what is Biblical. Paul wrote to the Romans in Romans 3:23,

for all have sinned and thus fall short of the glory of God,

the key word being ALL.

Then in the Psalms we read that David wrote,

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.Psalm 51:5

Then one last Scripture for your consideration would the the one related to the incident of King Jeroboam of the Northern kingdom. Jeroboam sent his wife undercover to Shiloh to ask of the prophet Ahijah if his ill son Abijah would live. This is what God told the prophet as to the son,

The dogs shall eat whoever belongs to Jeroboam and dies in the city, and the birds of the air shall eat whoever dies in the field; for the LORD has spoken!"' Arise therefore, go to your own house. When your feet enter the city, the child shall die. And all Israel shall mourn for him and bury him, for he is the only one of Jeroboam who shall come to the grave, because in him there is found something good toward the LORD God of Israel in the house of Jeroboam.(1Kings 14:11-13).

By reading the text it clearly states that God found something in him that was good. It does not say because he is a child, but because of something good. Only God knows the heart and like I pointed out we are all bad. All mens hearts are continually evil.

That is why Christ was born of a virgin woman. There is no stain on the child from Adam. Genesis 3:15 clearly states that the woman's seed shall crush satan. We all know that men carry the seed, but there is a seed in women that God planted so that when the fullness of times had come, the Holy Spirit would overcome a virgin and she will conceive. She will conceive a child from God not from Adam. Jesus had to be born without the sin nature or he could not be the perfect lamb to take away our sins. So Adam was not in the genes as to say of the picture.

However this does not mean that Mary was born without sin as the Catholic doctrine states. Even she admits her sin when told of the child she will bear. Nor is the Catholics correct in saying she was a perpetual virgin. She clearly had sex with Joseph because the Scriptures states that he did not know her until after the child was born.

I must now prepare my message for my afternoon sermon at a retirement center. So if you want to continue this I will answer you tonight when I get a chance.

If you need to know for references, I used the NKJV Bible for all my Scripture references

[freemike]

I am not saying all taxes are theft. But,, they can be.
Some taxes are needed and good. But does that mean that no tax is evil??? At some point the bank gets broken!

[Yudan]

My friend, you’re not going to talk me out of my position (which is that I can accept some answers have not been revealed by God), nor do I expect to talk you out of yours. And my own sins are far too great for me to stand in judgement of anyone. I hope and pray your ministry is a resounding success, and that you lead many souls to Christ.

However, let me remind you, brother, that the opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty. This is one of the many problems that I have developed with my Protestant upbringing. Many, many Protestants in my experience feel the need to have an answer for everything. If everything is known, the answer to every question, there is no room for God. If everything is cut, dried, and certain, ultimately we quit having faith. This, among many other things, has led me to Orthodoxy - that we have to accept some things on faith.

The concept of sola scriptura didn’t exist until the mid-16th century. So I would be careful citing Romans 3:23 - or any other individual verse - by itself to justify a position...let alone individual words within a particular verse. Because the next thing you know you’re handling rattlesnakes and drinking strychnine from mason jars...or stoning people to death for wearing cotton and wool at the same time. The key to Romans 3:23 was to whom Paul was talking and about what...that to live under the Law was not sufficient...obedience without faith is not sufficient.

My primary source of Scripture is the Orthodox Study Bible, which uses the NKJV for the New Testament (and the Septuagint for the Old Testament, as an aside), so to an extent we’re talking off the same page. There is an argument between varying schools of Christian thought about the proper translation of Matthew 1:25, and whether the use of the word “till” (or “to” as it is sometimes translated) implies that Mary and Joseph had relations after the birth of Jesus. The Greek phrase “eos ou” DOES NOT imply he necessarily did. So your assertion that he “obviously did” falls flat, brother. Unless you witnessed the act yourself.

The Church for over a thousand years accepted the verse not only to mean Joseph had not had relations with Mary - but also that state of nature continued on after Christ’s birth. The Orthodox Church still does embrace that.

Before there were Protestants, before the Schism, there was just The Church. And it was the Fathers of The Church who settled upon the Canon of Scripture so many seem to embrace as the only source of truth.

I’m not here to argue. I’ve said all I’m going to.

[guitarplayer1953]

Matt 25:31-26:2 31 "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory.
32 "All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.
33 "And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 "Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 'for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in;
36 'I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink?
38 'When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You?
39 'Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'
40 "And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'
41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 'for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink;
43 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.'
44 "Then they also will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?'
45 "Then He will answer them, saying, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'
46 "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

What will the Lord declare about you and I? SHEEP OR GOAT?

[OneVike]

I will pray for you, because you are wrong on so many aspects of what you just stated that I could write a whole thesis just on what you claim to be knowledgeable of. I too am schooled on koinonia Greek, some Classical Greek, and some Hebrew so we can go on and on about the true meaning of words if you would like.

Regardless of what the Church said for a thousand years, they are wrong and I would refer to the many writings of the ancients who have unequivocally come down on the side of Mary not being a perpetual virgin. From the very beginning with the disciples and on to those they taught, it was a given that Mary and Joseph had James, Jude, and the other children together. To say otherwise is to discount everything they had to say and all who knew what they had to say on the subject.

As for Matthew 1:25 let's look at it briefly.

The Greek word used for "virgin" in the New Testament is παρθένος pronounced, "parthenos", and it occurs 14 times. However, the word does not occur in Matt. 1:25. Instead, the literal Greek says, "and he knew her not until she gave birth to a son and called his name Jesus."

If the author wanted to convey she was always a virgin they would have specified like they always did in the Scriptures to drive the point home. However they did not in this verse because she did not remain a virgin.

Let me add one aside for you, and that is this. The question of Mary's state of purity after the birth of Christ truly matters only to the Roman Catholic theology. That is because if Mary was a perpetual virgin, it elevates her to such a high degree that she seems almost like a goddess and gives her titles such as co-mediatrix, queen of heaven, mother of the church, etc.

For this reason alone it is even a subject of study for the those who disagree on her state of purity after Christ's birth. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the issue of her perpetual virginity in hopes of providing a more biblical position.

However since you stated that you have said all you will say on this matter, I will also leave it alone.

[freemike]

Look,, love all those verses.

I don't see one there, though, that says,, "You didn't raise taxes or steal wealth from the upper class and distribute it to the poor!"

So,, until you find that one,, well, not sure what you are saying. I do see where I need to give and do,, but not where I need to make my neighbor give and do!!! Big difference!

[guitarplayer1953]

The whole point of the goat and sheep is it is personal I am to do it you are to do it. Not your neighbor not the people down the street not the government not the charities that it is so easy to write a check to not the church but His body.