Bible Questions? III

Thank you kind sir for taking the time.

 

Thanks for not answering the question.

 

Thanks for repeating your post but it still does not answer the question.

 

It was my pleasure, in fact it is questions like yours that this thread is suppose to be about.

 

Thanks for the definition but I already knew it. It's just that I've never called you a heretic, mislead perhaps but never a heretic.

My actions? Why? Did I try to stone you to death?

By your words you will be condemned.

 

I gave you the definition so that you could see that the words you are using to describe what I am saying are the same words that make the definition for heretic. Words have many conjugations. Why would you not use the word heretic? Is it because it arouses historically unpleasant associations for you?
By definition waterbrother, I am heretical, unorthodox, I say strange things.

Are you quoting scripture brother? Are you then accusing me of blaspheme as well, for wisdom is justified by her deeds.

 

What the bible shows is that men have beliefs, that men have traditions. The bible does not show that God set up a theocracy.
1. government by god: government by a god or by priests
2. community governed by god: a community governed by a god or priests
Men establish theocracies.
Government is a human artifact, God has the law.
Christs church is to feed people, not govern them.

 

Yes I did. If not for everyone then at least in this instance for this individual to be perfect, he must sell all that he owns and give to the poor. Further, we are not to worry for the morrow what we shall wear or what we shall eat, your father in heaven knows you need these things. The first commandment love God with all you strength, and mind, and soul precludes the necessity for these concerns. Do this first and all things will be added unto you. We do not earn our daily bread by the sweat of our brow, but rather we are given our supersubstance by God.

 

Once again you prove that you either have not read the Bible or you did not understand what you read.

 

Even this person was not required to sell all he owned to get into the kingdom of God, Jesus said it would be hard for him to get into heaven, but not impossible.

True but this does not make selling all we have a requirement either.

Still none of this shows that selling every thing is a requirement.

So no, you did not show that selling everything you own is a requirement or is that your answer, that God does not require us to sell everything we own?

 

"If not for everyone then at least in this instance for this individual to be perfect, he must sell all that he owns and give to the poor"

The young man said to him, all of these I have observed, what do I still lack. If you would be perfect, go , sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come follow me. When the young man heard this, he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions.

 

Obviously for this man he was still trusting in mammon and you can't serve both God and mammon. Seek first the kingdom or rely on God first then riches will also be given to you. I take it as we aren't required to give away all possesions, but we should be willing to at any time because they can be taken away at any time. The action of giving them away is just the outward display of our full trust in God. We should build a house on God(rock) not sand.

 

You know, it is not necessary for the son to be greater than the father, it is enough that the son be like the father. You are allowed to grow, to learn new things.
Although it is written, no work on the sabbath, Jesus demonstrates that God's providence is contingent on the need of man, the needs of his children, not on the performance of his children. The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.

 

I agree. I also know that if you were to ask it of the majority of adherents to give up their possessions, they also would "go away sad". The issue of material support as opposed to God's grace is not given the front and center consideration it deserves. Why, because it is front and center and people don't want the truth they want comfort. Instead they are taught that if you are in God's service then you can expect to have a Mercedes in the driveway. Do not
lay up for yourselves treasures on earth.

 

Well it's sure a lot easier to be willing to give everything away if you drive an old pick-up truck rather than a mercedes.

 

Depends also on whether your vehicle is connected to a source of income. The tentacles of our love of substance run deep.

 

A person make lack a great many things but that does not make them a requirement to serve God or to get into the kingdom of God.

 

I know it's more complicated than simply the car you drive, but in general it's harder to give away everything the wealthier you are. Like when I was in college I actually wanted to drive my piece of crap car off a cliff to enjoy the explossion..........a mercedes?....no.

 

I know there appears to be a level of difficulty but there is not. Whether our clinging to substance is one meager meal a day or a mansion in Miami, the conceptual principal is the same. The roots of olive trees produce olive trees.

 

If you lack something, then you require something to be full. This is a requirement of condition, it takes two for a condition to exist.