by acadian 23 Replies latest watchtower bible
Jesus wasn't one for making a person denounce their sin before he helped em out and taught them right.
And taught them right, the way it should be.
Me...I'd never go to war. I'm too chicken, I don't like killin people, and I don't like other people killin people. Gumscardycat
No man, it take more courage to stand for whats right, then give in to the easy way out. You have Gumballs! lol Acadian
Just seems like there's a catch 22 in that dogma . If satan is thrown to earth and takes over all secular authorities in 1914 then aren't you actually being in subjection to satan ? Personally I think stuff like you find in Romans was forged in there by the catholic church under emperor constantine . I think the only obligation a christian has is to pay taxes , give ceasars things unto ceasar and Gods unto God . Jesus said I am sending you as sheep amongst wolves not that they should be prepared for battle but are obligated to preach and teach about the kingdom , clearly Rome was a pagan nation and most historians agree very barbaric so there is no point in saying they use the sword only for good , I think the apostle Paul was killed for refusing to show ceasar worship which was part of the law .
I would say that, whereas Romans 13 is definitely political (and pro-Roman), the statements about the "world" in both John and James have little if anything to do with politics. As far as the Gospel and epistles of John are concerned, I think Gumby points to the right direction in referring to Gnosticism. In the Fourth Gospel the world (kosmos) is systematically opposed to the "above" Christ and his followers come from (8:23; 13:1; 14:17ff; 15:18f; 16:28; 17:6,9,14ff; 18:36; 1 John 2:15ff; 3:1,13; 4:3ff,17; 5:19). "The Jews" otoh belong to the "world," and "the ruler of the world" is opposed to "the Father" (12:31; 14:30; 16:11). Those lines will be hardened in later Gnosticism where the OT God will be clearly identified to the "ruler of the world". In James the "world" is used in a similarly religious yet more ethical way, as applied to communitarian behaviour (which should not resemble "the world," 1:27; 4:4). This is hardly related to politics either.
As a side note, whether Paul was beheaded or not rests on the appraisal of later Christian tradition. The book of Acts (which is heavily pro-Roman, blaming Paul's troubles on the Jews and even Jewish "Christians," cf. chapter 21), does not record his end.
I think Gumby points to the right direction in referring to Gnosticism.
Thanks Narkster.....I just wanted to blow this up a bit for everyone to see I ain't really a dumb bastard.
Gumsmart
Thanks heathen. I would agree with about the early church and corruption of the bible. What I wonder though about Jesus statement about paying ceasar things to ceasar's and God's things to God. If God created everything then in truth all things are Gods. Its a pardox, I think? And if satan is the ruler of this world, aren't all governments anti-christ then? I just wonder why God wants christians to be in subjection to satan's rule? I think this is one of those issues that can go either way, depending on your core beliefs. Thanks again heathen! Acadian I gotta get some work done, be back later.
God is the creator of all things but he did give us free will so what it means is that you must obey God by worship . IMO The bible does show the man made governments as being in opposition to the kingdom of the heavens . Revelation 19:19
When I was in and had bible studies I always taught that..
this is a "attitude"
to be "no part of the world" means to live a life as a "spiritual person"
But then again... this is a spiritual person as described in JW world and doing JW things.
Is'nt funny how when we make up our minds to get out of there... even things as a spiritul man has a NEW meaning?
Does this help..?
Q.: What does it really mean to be "no part of the world?"
A.: Act like you're from another planet.
The objection the Romans had was that while Paul did state that we should be in subjection to Roman authority, he also said that Rome's authority existed only because God placed it with them. It made Rome subject to God. Don't think they liked that too much! As far as not being part of this world, it comes right back to that. We do not have to withdraw from the world, in fact, we need to minister to the world by God's commission, but at the same time, don't let ourselves be drawn into the parts of worldly living which take us away from honoring God. You can have friends and family who are not Christian and witness to them through love and caring. You can take food to the homeless who are addicts without becoming one yourself. You can speak out in favor of civil rights without being violent. Just some examples.
The objection the Romans had was that while Paul did state that we should be in subjection to Roman authority, he also said that Rome's authority existed only because God placed it with them. It made Rome subject to God. Don't think they liked that too much!
I doubt the Romans would care a lot how subjection was justified in any community, provided it was recommended instead of insurrection and civil disobedience. The Pauline universalism (neither Jew nor Greek etc.) was a very fitting philosophy, and the post-Pauline great church, a very fitting social structure for the empire, as Constantine later found out.
The vast majority of the NT -- with the notable exception of Revelation -- is very Roman-friendly (sometimes to the point of obsequiosity, e.g. Acts). The Roman persecutions -- only alluded to in Revelation and perhaps 1 Peter -- were the exception, not the rule.
