I just knew you were going to ask that, about the tornado! Why, indeed? Did the others along the storm track not pray? Or was it happenstance? When I reach the afterlife, I intend to ask! About Matthew 2:23 and "Nazarene," greater minds than ours have spent countless hours batting this about, one way and another. There is not an 'easy' answer. I do personally like what Barnes wrote about it in his commentary, so I will post it FWIW, acknowledging that it is by no means a decisive bit: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken ... - The words here are not found in any of the books of the Old Testament, and there has been much difficulty in ascertaining the meaning of this passage. Some have supposed that Matthew meant to refer to Jdg_13:5, to Samson as a type of Christ; others that he refers to Isa_11:1, where the descendant of Jesse is called “a Branch;” in the Hebrew נצר Nêtzer. Some have supposed that he refers to some prophecy which was not recorded, but handed down by tradition. But these suppositions are not satisfactory. It is much more probable that Matthew refers not to any particular place, but to the leading characteristics of the prophecies respecting him. The following remarks may make this clear: 1. He does not say “by the prophet,” as in Mat_1:22; Mat_2:5, Mat_2:15, but “by the prophets,” meaning no one particularly, but the general character of the prophecies. 2. The leading and most prominent prophecies respecting him were, that he was to be of humble life; to be despised and rejected. See Isa_53:2-3, Isa_53:7-9, Isa_53:12; Ps. 22. 3. The phrase “he shall be called” means the same as he shall be. 4. The character of the people of Nazareth was such that they were proverbially despised and contemned, Joh_1:46; Joh_7:52. To come from Nazareth, therefore, or to be a Nazarene, was the same as to be despised, or to be esteemed of low birth; to be a root out of dry ground, having no form or comeliness. This was what had been predicted by all the prophets. When Matthew says, therefore, that the prophecies were “fulfilled,” his meaning is, that the predictions of the prophets that he would be of a low and despised condition, and would be rejected, were fully accomplished in his being an inhabitant of Nazareth, and despised as such.
I have one Yes but Nêtzer is not the same as Nazareth and other meanings for Nazareth have been suggested. From Wikipedia One view suggests this toponym might be an example of a tribal name used by resettling groups on their return from exile. Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·ṣar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep," and understood either in the sense of "watchtower" or "guard place" I don't think it was Nazareth that was despised but Galilee in general even your mate Barnes quotes John 7:52 which mentions Galilee not Nazareth and I get the sense that John 1:46 mentions Nazarath as being part of Galilee. I don't think Nazareth would have been used in a derogatory sense by the locals it's not mentioned in the OT. The earliest non biblical reference to Nazareth is from 221 AD and earliest non Christian reference is from a synygog around 300 AD, I don't think Nazareth registered on the national psychey
I think it is un-Christian to 'blame' any particular person's 'beliefs' for the ills and dysfunctionality of 'society' as a whole. That is scapegoating of the most pernicious kind. Nazi Germany 1928-1945 was a prime example of that kind of blame culture. The irony being that Nazis made a sport out of killing babies in and out of the womb, killing the elderly, sick, nonproductive and uncooperative, and they were about the furthest one could imagine getting from being 'charitable'. Yet many of them retained a veneer of 'Christian religiosity' and some of the most fanatical were religiously into Pagan 'Spirituality' and superstition. They were far from being an 'atheistic' society, they had become a religiously, anti-Christian one. As I have just pointed out, I would suggest actually, that in fact, it is. Secular Government is not the root of the problem. There have been extremely repressive and dictatorial 'Religious', even 'Christian' governments in the past. Roman Catholicism under the 'Holy' Roman Empire probably killed its fair share of babies, heretics and old people if it felt its despotic rule and privileges under threat. Now you are finally getting near to the hub of the problem: Modern society, even modern Christian society has lost its ability to entertain, discuss and even think about spiritual phenomena, such as angels, demons, spirit, God, heaven, hell etc. because it no longer has language capable of describing, in a universally accepted way, what any of them actually mean. To the secular mind these things are merely superstitious nonsense. To the fanatically religious they are a nostalgic desire to return to a religious 'world view' that they imagine the ancients all believed in and which even conflicts with their own rational understanding of these concepts. The New Testament's "Principalities and Powers" is a generic category referring to the determining forces of physical, psychic, and social, existence. These 'powers' usually consist of both an outer manifestation and an inner spirituality or interiority. In order to be effective, power necessarily needs to be incarnate, institutional or systematic. In the case of the Nazis the 'outer manifestation' resided in the Gestapo, a corrupt judiciary, the Wehrmacht and other arms of the Nazi state. The same goes for Communism and every other political system including those of the USA and UK. The New Testament scriptural view is indiscriminate. Power, though has a dual aspect , (as far as New Testament thinking is concerned), possessing both an outer visible form, (constitutions, judges, police, leaders, office complexes, organisations), and an inner, invisible spirit that provides it legitimacy, compliance, and clout. In the ancient world people discerned and described the interiority of things by the only means available to them: symbolic projection. They were able to monitor the actual impact of the spirituality of an institution such as the Roman Empire or the Priesthood by throwing it up against the screen of the cosmos in the form of visual images in which the interiority of the social entity was perceived as a personal entity: an angel, demon, or devil. For some in todays western world this approach still works but at a cost of considerable mystification. So the 'super religious' who see the internal aspects of the power that controls society have no language with which to communicate with those in the same society who have largely adopted 'the scientific method' of ascertaining truths, which by definition can only involve the study of material objects which have no 'spirit' or interiority of any kind. Add to that the fact that 'the scientific method' is responsible for providing almost 100% of what is good about 21st century civilisation, (Disease control, technological advances, energy availability, transport, medicine etc) compared to the superstitious religious ignorance and internecine strife and conflict of past ages, (and admittedly also a high %age of what is bad also), and you then have a steep hill to climb to convince an intellectual atheist that there is a world of spirituality for them to be even worth investigating. No wonder the poor souls have difficulty apprehending the truth behind material reality. .
Thank you! This forum seems to be quite relaxed and I really like that. I would encourage you to review this poll. While it is true that abortion is becoming increasingly acceptable even among the self-identified religious in the West, it doesn't approach the 83% of "unaffiliated." Consider this poll as well. Among those who "attend church seldom/never," support for euthanasia is 86%. Contrast that with the 37% who support it in the category of "attend church weekly." A controversial translation, but one I will always cherish lol. Yes, it is important to correct our understanding of prophecies. This is what Jesus and his Apostles did. The Jews certainly thought the literal person of Elijah would return. That was a mistaken notion. Regarding Matthew 2:23, this was in reference to the despised nature of the Christ (John 1:46). I specifically mention the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem because it is difficult to frame that prophecy as being written after the fact. While OT prophecies are nice, skeptics will often dismiss them because the written prophecies could have been penned after the events had already taken place. That explanation cannot work with the prophecy of the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem. We know that most (if not all) of the NT was written prior to 70 AD. Matthew 24 is the primary text. Saying something doesn't make it true. Mormons, just as an example, claim to adhere to the Bible. Yet they have various beliefs that outright contradict the Bible. Here is a good overview of just that.
I don't think it is un-Christian if it is the truth. Not to be pedantic, but the Nazis didn't come to power until 1932. No one is going to deny the atrocities that occurred during WWII. However, it is a bit...exaggerated to associate any generalizations placed on a group as the equivalent of the tactics of the Nazis. I will not deny the religious tolerance of the Third Reich. There certainly were Christian Nazis. In fact, Christians in the USSR openly embraced the Germans as liberators from Soviet oppression. Religious tolerance wasn't unique to the Nazis. They were not a Christian nation. They readily embraced and even promoted other religious traditions. I'd disagree. Societies are not a monolith. Secular government is the root of the problem. Humans are not perfect. Secular governments never make an appeal to anyone other than imperfect humans. Theocratic governments make appeals to God's Holy Law. Consider Puritan New England, for example. Regardless of their shortcomings, it is important to recognize that they sought to apply God's Laws and standards in every aspect of society. We should seek to do the same. With that said, we would be foolish to expect perfection out of human government. I don't know how many babies were killed in the HRE, but I sincerely doubt it was to the tune of 600,000+ annually. "Universally" acceptable language isn't just lacking when it comes to spirituality. With the Enlightenment came all sorts of problems that are primarily associated with natural egalitarianism. For example, we are having an increasingly difficult time talking about gender in our Western societies. We are also having an increasingly difficult time with subjective morality and cultural relativism. Some people are mistaken in believing that they can embrace Enlightenment ideals to the extent to which they are comfortable with them. This will never be the case. One can't even pump the brakes on this ride. I wouldn't say it is a "nostalgic desire." It is a desperate thrashing against the currents of rationalism and naturalism. I agree that there is a failure of communication. As stated previously, it isn't limited to spiritual matters. The failure is widening as societies move further from tradition. We've let society and her institutions turn against us. The solution is self-evident: collapse. The moral decay that comes along with progressivism will bring the West to her knees. This much is inevitable. Where we go after that is where the real discussion can begin. Scientific advancement should never be an end. We can't afford to lose ourselves in the pursuit of it.
Scapegoating an individual and blaming him/her, his/her 'ethnicity', 'colour', 'religion' etc for the general ills of a corrupt and sinful society, is not a quest for truth. It is merely an exercise in projection of one's own evil character in an act of attempted self justification and a denial of one's own sin. Matt.7:1-5. The national ground they sowed their seeds of hate into was already fertile and receptive of their bigotry long before 1932. They just didn't identify as a group until then. You might think differently if you were a Jew, Gypsy, labelled genetically inferior, a Communist, A Roman Catholic, a Free Church Evangelical, or a member of any other 'group' Nazis generally decided needed persecution and eradication. Well you aught to deny they were 'religiously tolerant' because the facts of the matter are they were not tolerant of anyone or anything which did not wholeheartedly agree with their Anti-Christ, Nazi, ideology of hate. Christ did not find a 'healed society of perfect people' under the most rigid Pharisaical rule Israel had so far experienced, with Roman law to back it up. Forcing them all under 'religious rule' does not improve them. Living under Puritanical rule must have been hell on earth. A community quite willing to murder on a suspicion of witchcraft, rule breaking or just plain religious disagreement, (as in their persecution and attempted genocide of the Quakers). Including the genocide of the indigenous people and the Quakers? I'm not sure I like your idea of utopia. Enlightenment is better than sitting in darkness though, I have it on good authority. Matt.4:16, Ps.107:10, Isa.42:6-9. I see it as a quaint hankering after a sense of 'certainty' which never really existed because it was not based on reality or 'demonstrable truth'. There is nothing 'wrong' with being rational, and natural is the state of being that God demands of us, he can't stand hypocrisy or those who lie to themselves concerning their natural righteousness. Matt.16:17-20. Do you not believe this? And I don't mean the bit about Peter being 'the rock', that was probably sarcasm, in view of subsequent events. Luke 22:31. I meant the bit about the Church not needing to 'thrash against currents of rationalism or naturalism', but rather overcoming the world and even bursting through the gates of hell itself as long as it remains faithful to its Lord and Master. Science, as long as it is a pursuit of truth, is a means of discovering God's ways. Rom.1:18-20. Those who deliberately ignore truth are actually declining God's grace. Ps.119:153. .
Scapegoating would be y blaming x for something that y has done. We both agree that would be wrong. However, I am not advocating for scapegoating. You seem to be under the impression that a specific group of people can never be blamed for wrongs in a society. I am not of that mind. It very well could be the case that a specific group is blameworthy. It is typically a set of groups. That still isn't quite right. They certainly identified as a group prior to 1932. They just didn't come into power until then. The "seeds of hate" existed almost from day one of European-Jewish contact. The Jews and Gentiles had a long-standing rocky relationship prior to post-war sympathy. No, I wouldn't think differently. Groups can be guilty of wrongdoing. That isn't to say that every individual in a group is equally guilty. I am sure there were perfectly innocent Nazis, for example. But that doesn't change the general condemnation. We're spinning in circles here. I think we are in agreement. Just because the Nazis had Christians in their ranks doesn't mean they were a Christian society. I am not defending lukewarm religious societies. Yes, we agree that humans are not perfect. Living under "puritanical rule" just is living in a covenanted Christian community. I find it curious that you'd describe that as "hell on earth." There were certainly imperfections within Puritan societies. Never have I said otherwise. Nor would I say otherwise. Humans are not perfect. As such, any human society will reflect that disposition. However, the Puritans sought to apply Biblical principles in all aspects of society. We should commend them and seek to do the same in our societies. There wasn't a genocide of indigenous people or Quakers. That is such a preposterous claim that I don't even know if I need to address it beyond simple denial. Just so we are clear, the "Enlightenment" is a historical moniker for an intellectual movement. Applying Scripture to that would be like me defending the Puritans because Matthew 5:8 says "blessed are the pure in heart." You are correct in saying that there isn't anything wrong with being rational. Though we should clarify this a bit: there isn't anything wrong with being rational within the framework of Christianity. There are plenty of hyper-rational atheists, as an example, that come to entirely wrong conclusions. This is not desirable. Likewise, there isn't anything wrong with science within the framework of Christianity. The natural world declares the glory of God. Pursuing an understanding of the natural world without acknowledging God is dishonorable and leads to wrongheaded conclusions. Of course I believe the words in Matthew 16:17-20. The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church. However, the Church and civil authorities/institutions are two different things. As well, false churches will fall with the civil authorities/institutions. The issue is that science has ceased to be about discovering God's ways as we become increasingly secular and atheistic in the West. It is much more about glorifying man than glorifying God.
Which came first, the secular government or the secular society? (Sort of a chicken-and-egg question, almost.) I think the answer would be, "it depends." In our current democratic republic, secular society has enabled secular government by electing secular officials. But then, the secular government further encourages the secularization of society via education policy, laws passed, administrative regs, etc. It becomes a feedback loop: the society then becomes even more secular, which leads to an even more secular government, which leads to... etc. When elected and appointed gov't officials are atheistic, agnostic, or even weak in faith, they don't talk to the One who knows all and who has all wisdom. Therefore the officials tend to make less wise decisions. But the same is true of the people in the society. They need wisdom to elect the right officials as well as to properly order their own lives. To break the feedback loop will require a sustained interruption. A godly official will often provide a temporary interruption in the loop, and a welcome respite from the downward spiral. But a more sustained improvement needs a longer term solution.
OK perhaps genocide is an exaggeration, but 'Puritans' were far from being 'pure in heart' and their control freak regime was anything but 'tolerant'. In 1657 some Quakers were able to find refuge to practice in Providence Plantations established by Roger Williams. Other Quakers faced persecution in Puritan Massachusetts. In 1656 Mary Fisher and Ann Austin began preaching in Boston. They were considered heretics because of their insistence on individual obedience to the Inner Light. They were imprisoned and banished by the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Their books were burned, and most of their property was confiscated. They were imprisoned under terrible conditions, then deported. Some Quakers in New England were only imprisoned or banished. A few were also whipped or branded. Christopher Holder, for example, had his ear cut off. A few were executed by the Puritan leaders, usually for ignoring and defying orders of banishment. Mary Dyer was thus executed in 1660. Three other martyrs to the Quaker faith in Massachusetts were William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson, and William Leddra. These events are described by Edward Burrough in A Declaration of the Sad and Great Persecution and Martyrdom of the People of God, called Quakers, in New-England, for the Worshipping of God (1661). Around 1667, the English Quaker preachers Alice and Thomas Curwen, who had been busy in Rhode Island and New Jersey, were imprisoned in Boston under Massachusetts law and publicly flogged. Puritans had a special hatred of American Indians. ... Many articles point to the slaughter of Pequot men, women and children at the tribe's village, near present-day Mystic, Conn., in 1637, during the Pequot War, as evidence of the special enmity between Puritans and Indians. .
Not that it has anything to contribute to 'miracles' per se, but isn't mother nature miraculous and don't human beings ignorantly screw things up by interfering with it. https://twitter.com/mikegalsworthy/status/1293191247557869569 .
I would say their intentions were pure most of the time. And I am not sure that tolerance is necessarily ideal for a Christian society. Should we tolerate Christ deniers and scoffers? I see no reason to if we are able to establish a private covenanted community. Quakers are heretics. I say that with a heavy heart considering that many of my ancestors from England were Quakers. Today, the difference between a Quaker and a Unitarian Universalist is quite negligible. I attended a Quaker "service" last year and it just was a bunch of people gathered around together in silence (meditation). Fun fact: Quakers would often go streaking through Puritan towns and churches as a way of protest. Not going to deny that. This is quite common throughout Christian history. John Calvin's Geneva, for example, burned Servetus at the stake. There were even Catholic persecutions (and executions) under Elizabeth I. Oh yes, there were certain tribes who didn't get along with the Puritans. However, no one would deny the extensive missionary work done by Puritans in native populations.
Like Wako and the Branch Davidians perhaps or would you persecute them as heretics? Or as Jesus recommended leave them to get on with it and concentrate your evangelistic efforts where they will be well received. But not tolerating others mistakes is all a matter of theological argument I suppose, not at all unloving. (I really miss a sarcasm emoticon). And? Is silence a heresy now? I believe they are very peaceable, which really winds some violent bigots up I suppose. Matt.10:17. They also don't spend a lot of time loudly eulogising and singing love songs to Jesus, but I'm not sure he feels deprived about that, and it's hardly a crime. Luke 6:46. And since neither you nor I nor anyone else has ever proved God's Trinitarian credentials, it should not be an issue over which we should risk breaking the golden rule over. Luke 10:27. And this included Samaritans, who had some weird religious beliefs compared to Jesus. It might have been them being chased naked by bigotted Puritans. Hard to know now, but was nakedness ever offensive to God? If so, God must be offended by everone yet born, the second they entered the world, and clothes are our idea, not God's: (Gen.2:25, Gen.3:7). Matt.5:40, You realise that in NT times in Gallilee losing both coat and cloak left you naked, I suppose, and that Jesus Christ died naked on the cross? (The artists all get it wrong out of prudishness). Heb.12:2. Yep! SIN is very common throughout Christian history and it was often convicted and convinced Christians that continued to do it and still do. Luke 6:46 again. Didn't get along with the Puritans? That is a euphamism within an oxymoron. Puritans persecuted anyone they labelled as impure, while recognising no impurity in themselves. The Pharisees of modern Christianity. Thank God you got most of them over there when they decided to leave in the Mayflower. Missionary work? If you can call being given the choice between starvation, persecution or conversion - evangelism. I guess you too would recant paganism if suspended upside down over a campfire as the RC Spanish Conquistadores used to with the South American Native Folk. Not very certain though that the practice was approved of by Christ, even though it appeared on the surface to be very effective, numbers wise. .
Yes, Branch Davidians were and still are heretics. My assumption is that we would at least agree that polygamous sex cults are immoral. You seem to have a strong aversion to the idea of a Christian society organized by the principles found in Scriptures. I am not sure why. Jesus' mission was only three years in length. The Apostles were hurried because the destruction of Jerusalem was imminent. We aren't discouraged from forming Christian communities and enforcing Scriptural principles within those communities. There is nothing wrong with tolerating mistakes. As I said previously, no human being is perfect. That does not mean we should embrace or recognize those mistakes as legitimate. That would be immoral. That would be unloving. The purpose of church worship is not silence. This isn't something I need to tell you if you are a member of the CofE. Do you go to a service and sit in a silent room? No. You go to service and partake in the liturgy, prayer, singing praises, the Lord's Supper, etc. None of this is done by Quakers. Let's not even get into their non-creedal stance. Your dismissive attitude of praising our Lord is mildly problematic. And your utilization of irrelevant passages is also mildly problematic. I don't think I've seen you properly utilize any Scriptures in your statements. I pointed this out before when you tried to use some passages such as Matthew 4:16 to justify the Enlightenment. I will do it again here. Matthew 10:17 is speaking about Christian persecution because of their faith. It is not a general statement about peaceful people being persecuted. Christ's concern is with his flock. It always has been and always will be (John 10:11). I am not sure how Luke 6:46 is supposed to be relevant to your claim that a lack of praise to the Lord isn't offensive. But I am willing to let you off the hook for this one because your next statement is absolutely stunning. No one has proved God's Trinitarian credentials? How about the Scriptures prove God's Trinitarian credentials (Matthew 28:19; John 1:18; 2 Corinthians 13:14). How about the entire testimony of the Church proves God's Trinitarian credentials (e.g., Nicene Creed). This is not a teaching that is disputed outside of fringe groups such as Quakers, UUs, JWs, Mormons, etc. If someone denies the divinity of Christ, then their Christology and conception of God have more in common with Islam than Christianity. Regarding Luke 10:27, loving your neighbor includes protecting them from false teachers and correcting them when they are in error. I am not sure what your point about Samaritans is supposed to be. Even the Jews had "some weird religious beliefs compared to Jesus." Jesus didn't come to reassure people of their errors: "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day" (John 12:48). Oh, I am sure they were chased once they brought their indecency into view. I can say that you have a strong tendency toward intellectual dishonesty. This is not only coming from my personal interactions with you here, but it is also coming from other posts of yours I have come across on this forum. Let me show you your intellectual dishonesty right here: Was nakedness ever offensive to God? Yes (Genesis 9:20-27)! And it still is. That doesn't mean nakedness is offensive by nature. As you rightly pointed out, Adam and Eve were naked in the Garden. As well, we are born naked and it isn't offensive for an infant to be naked within certain contexts. Would it be indecent to have your child nude out in public? Yes. Would it be indecent for you to be nude out in public? Yes. Is it indecent for a mother or a father to show their nakedness to their children? Yes. I didn't need to tell you any of this. You're presumably a Christian and not a post-modernist. You know what is morally right and what is morally wrong. You're misreading Matthew 5:40. Jesus isn't telling you to give up everything you possibly have if you are sued. If someone were to take you to court today over a petty lawsuit, would you offer the person all of your possessions? What about all of your non-vital organs? Verse 42 says that we should not turn away from someone who asks to borrow from us. Does that mean if someone asks to borrow your wife you would allow it? What if a stranger asks to borrow your paycheck? Can you not turn them away? The meaning of the text in Matthew 5 is quite simple. Don't return petty insults in response to a petty insult. Don't be overly concerned with earthly possessions. Help those in need. Jesus likely was naked on the cross. It was shameful. And yet you seem to have no problem with nakedness in any context. We don't depict our Lord as naked because it would be shameful. Pornography is abundant enough in this world if you truly desire it. Or let me guess, you also don't see anything wrong with pornography because sex is a natural function of man? Does the recording of the events concerning Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 keep you up at night? Two Christians who (presumably) held to the teachings of the Apostles. They were struck dead by God because of their lies. Or how about God's Holy Law in the Old Testament which demanded death for blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-23)? God's Law is holy and righteous. We should not tolerate blasphemy. To be sure, I am not suggesting execution for blasphemy is needed. I am suggesting that toleration of it is inexcusable. Are you defining church discipline as "persecution"? That's not persecution. That's church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:1-13). The Church is to "be holy and without blemish" (Ephesians 5:27). Regarding the missionary work done by the Puritans, I'd encourage you to read about John Eliot or Roger Williams.
Ah- but this is not quite correct. Article 8 of their Articles of Faith says" We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" Pearl of Great Price Pg 59. So maybe the contradictions in your "good overview" were where the Bible wasn't correctly translated Smith did write a "corrected" version of the Bible but this just opens another can barrel of worms. Tell me about your destruction of Jerusalem prophecy.
Well, they use the King James Version and I am not aware of any Greek or Hebrew scholar that has agreed with the textual criticisms given by Mormons. And it is in Matthew 24.
I think the eye-roll emoticon is as close as you get. A polite version of sarcasm, perhaps. Or you could do a or a
Yeah, and the RCC believes the Bible insofar as it is interpreted correctly (by which they mean, 'according to RC Magisterium and RC Tradition.') More's the pity.
Ahh statistics. I still remember our finance minister saying the rate of increase of inflation is going down, and being furious no one picked him up on it. Looking at your poll I assume you don't support Democrates as well, as that bunch of reprobates are just 1% behind us at 82% supporting abortion in all or most cases. You say "the self-identified religious in the West, it doesn't approach the 83% " I'll let others think if this is correct apparently black Protestants are 64%. Mainline white Protestants 60% and even the RCs at 56%. This is correct but only because of "sour grapes". Smith's wife Emma gave the inspired bible manuscript to the Reorganised Church of LDS in 1866, Brigham Young couldn't stomach getting a copy of this from an apsotate group and said " That made us very anxious, in the days of Joseph , to get the new translation; but the Bible is good enough just as it is , it will answer my purpose" (Journal of discourses vol 3 pg 116). The reorg. LDS published it in 1867. I'll get onto Matt 24 soon but from memory couldn't this have been written after the destuction of the temple. I seem to remember some ancient Matthew scrap of text (raylands?) mentioning Temple tax in the past tense as there was no temple to have a tax for.
I have a strong aversion to evangelism by coercion, mind manipulation and threats. I agree the Branch Davidian was a pernicious sect, though I think the Law could have dealt with their excesses better than it actually did and it certainly wasn't the Church's job to go in and sort them out. I am not averse to local churches as communities of faith with agreed rules of conduct based upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. What I object to are siege mentality sects which devise policing techniques to control their members and keep them in line with some imagined purity ethic, even ones based upon someone's understanding of holy scripture OT and NT. Such experiments rarely last and are no substitute for truly 'Kingdom Living' in obedience to Jesus Christ. Enforcement sounds rather like it is going to be inextricably linked to legalism, and legalism is not living in the Spirit, and where the Spirit is not, neither is there freedom, and eventually neither is there 'life', the kind of 'life' that Christ gives in abundance. There is no substitute for the invisible true church of Jesus Christ, whatever visible denomination we happen to be in. We certainly should not copy or condone foolishness or wickedness. Being tolerant of something does not imply being an accessory to it or condoning it. Jesus was criticised for his tolerant attitude to law breakers, prostitutes and other sinners but he frequently verbally chewed out religious types with their holier than thou judgmental religious bigotry and encouraged everyone to keep God's Laws, as he himself did. What Quakers do is up to them. I am not a Quaker I am a CofE lay minister and the style of worship I am used to involves a great deal of praise to Jesus, The Father and The Holy Spirit. I don't tell Quakers what they should do and I would thank them not to try to tell me what I should do. What style of worship anyone engages in is entirely between them and God. If that style of worship is "In Spirit and in Truth" then who am I to judge another's servant? I don't remember having a 'dismissive attitude to praising Our Lord': I said: "They also don't spend a lot of time loudly eulogising and singing love songs to Jesus, but I'm not sure he feels deprived about that, and it's hardly a crime". Luke 6:46. The point being made was that Our Lord prefers obedience to the sounds of half-hearted and possibly insincere praise. If Quakers are obedient to Christ, but silent, I'm sure Christ does not object to it. Neither would he object if they decided to enthusiastically sing his praises. Luke 6:46 seems to me to make that point and Luke 19:40 also seems to make it in a different way. Only to you it would seem: Luke 6:46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?" Does this not indicate to you that Jesus Christ Our Lord is more interested in your obedience to 'what he tells you' than to your effusive paeans of praise and declaring Him your Lord, but perhaps ignoring his advice in your daily living and conduct in the world. What exactly did you find lacking in the exegesis I have just treated you to then? Perhaps your difficulty is one of comprehension rather than my lack of clarity or the irrelevance of the citations. You mean this: "the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned.” Matt.4:16 Surely you are not suggesting that 'enlightement' is a bad thing. This verse seems to celebrate the increase of knowledge, particularly Knowledge of Christ. All true knowledge is good, is it not? Are you trying to suggest that 'The Enlightenment" needs to be justified? That the increase of knowledge and the revealing of scientific truth, releasing the human race from centuries of superstitious darkness, was not a good thing? That God opposed it? That it was an 'evil'? That God preferred we remain in darkness and in the region of the shadow of death? "Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, Relevant because addressed to 'disciples' such as you and me. Relevant because it deals with 'people who object to our philosophical stance' to the degree that they willingly persecute those they disagree with us philosophically and theologically and hate our praxis. Relevant because we can fall easily into the same trap as 'men' who persecute peaceful people because of their 'Quaker faith'. Which metaphorically speaking, you were yourself advocating, by your critical expressions of intolerance and labelling, toward Quaker praxis. Perhaps that would be because it wasn't meant to be. Luke 6:46, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?" refers to the fact that Jesus prefers obedience to vacuous and perhaps insincere praise. I think I've already dealt with this. The Son of Man does not demand praise from anyone and only appreciates perfect praise. All these things you mention are not 'Proofs'. They are what we "Believe to be True". They are tenets of The Apostolic Faith. They are maxims of a true and lively faith unto salvation, but in importance to Christian praxis they are secondary to the teaching of Jesus Christ concerning our duty to God and our neighbour. If in order to impose Trinitarian belief on your neighbour you fail to treat him as you would wish them to treat you, (not many prefer immolation), then you are anti-Christ in your behaviour, no matter how correct you may feel yourself to be in your doctrine. Since Trinitarian theory cannot be "Proved", but only demonstrated by the interpretation of various scriptures, then 'believed' as a matter of 'faith', it should not be surprising that sects, when they split off from The Church lose Trinitarian belief before almost anything else, because it is entirely a matter of 'faith' and even those who claim to believe it rarely understand it sufficiently to explain it satisfactorily to others. My point was that Samaritans were despised by Jews because of their unorthodox religious beliefs. John 4:6-42. Luke 10:30-37. Yet Jesus used one as an example of neighbourliness. I don't think you'll find that God objected to either Noah's drunkenness or to his nakedness, in fact I can't see anything in the text you quoted that remotely refers to how God felt about it all. "Noah began to be a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned backward, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.” He also said, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant.” Genesis 9:20-27 Nakedness was not even forbidden by The Law at that time and you have not convinced me that GOD was offended in the slightest. The whole thing was an exercise in hypocrisy really. Whose fault was it that Noah was naked? Noah's. Who got cursed for it Canaan, just because Noah got drunk in his birthday suit so Ham, Canaans father could not help seeing him. So Canaan gets cursed for his Dad telling the truth about what was seen, even though Canaan was not even yet born, which turns out very conveniently for Israel later on when they invade The Promised land and make slaves of the local descendents of Canaan. All very true, but was God upset? I can't see that anywhere in the text yet you accuse me of quoting irrelevances. Do you find it there that God was offended by Noah's nakedness? If you do you must have a dodgy KKK translation I guess. You missed the point again. Galilean peasants didn't wear underwear or pin striped suits. They had only two garments. A coat one piece garment and a cloak to sleep in. It got very cold at night. It was illegal for judiciary to take a persons cloak and keep it overnight. Deut.24:13 If someone sued you wrongly for your coat, giving your cloak also meant that THEY were breaking the law, thus shaming them before the court. Christ's advice was subversive and intended to embarrass persecutors into being compassionate. I didn't say I have no problem with nakedness. I said GOD has no problem with it. Jews in Nazi Concentration camps were often forced to go naked in the freezing cold. God had no problem with their nakedness, he has a serious problem with the bastards who forced it on them though. As a matter of fact I find the Ananias and Saphira passage puzzling, as do many others who have given it much thought. I could give you what I have in half a dozen commentaries on it if you like. As to blasphemy being inexcusable, there is no acceptable excuse for it but it can be forgiven and scripture says much of it shall be. Luke 12:10. Are you defining flailing, lashes, cutting off of ears, immolation, lynching, fining, branding etc. as "church discipline"? "Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish." Eph.5:26-27. I don't see anything in these verses justifying flagellation, immolation or cutting off of ears by others in the church. Perhaps you wanted to see something else in your translation of it.