I'm confused;

Tell us about yourself...
Locked
User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: I'm confused;

Post by ransomme »

Artaxerxes wrote: October 30th, 2022, 1:09 pm
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 11:02 am
Artaxerxes wrote: October 30th, 2022, 8:33 am
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 5:55 am

Ok, so you are promoting the way of Cain? "Am I my brother’s keeper?"

For clarity's sake, I desire to understand and for other people to understand truth. What you have said above about what was lost and the fullness of the priesthood does not seem to be correct. Adding more credence to what Shawn Henry and I had put forward here, see what Joseph Smith in his journal said on the first day he was, "...instructing them in the principles and order of the Priesthood, attending to washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchisedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings which have been prepared for the Church of the First Born, and come up and abide in the presence of the Eloheim in the eternal worlds. In this council was instituted the ancient order of things for the first time in these last days." - Joseph Smith, May 4, 1842

So reading what Joseph said here in context with these verses, things come more into focus (call me a skeptic, but I have doubts that you read them):

JST Genesis 14:25-32
D&C 76:54,67,71,94,102
D&C 84:23-27
D&C 113:7-8
D&C 121:39-46
The oath of the priesthood
That isn't what I said. We should certainly help others. But other people's unrighteousness isn't on us.

No, that quote is exactly what I'm talking about. The fullness/completeness/being filled up that is meant by the scriptural use of pleroma does not mean that there is one single thing that represents this completeness. That's why he lists ALL of those things as constituting and bring part of the fullness. ALL of the ordinances are required for the fullness. Missing any ordinances, like baptisms for the dead, would mean there is not a completeness.
So you are saying...

It is achieving the end goals, the design, the purpose of the Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God. Its completeness.

The completeness of this order, which is given by God by His Oath is when we "receive it", which is to say, "...sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God (aka the Church of the Firstborn) . And also all they who receive this priesthood receive me, saith the Lord; For he that receiveth my servants receiveth me; And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father; And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him." (D&C 84:33-38)

aka
Fulness of the Father, Fulness of his grace, Fulness of His glory, etc.

"the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father" (DC76:71)

"They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;" (DC76:94)

"76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fullness.
77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;" (DC76:76-77,86 - important for context)

"And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first. And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son. And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father; And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him. And it shall come to pass, that if you are faithful you shall receive the fulness of the record of John I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fullness. For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace. And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn; And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn." (DC93:14-22)

"To have the privilege of receiving the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, to have the heavens opened unto them, to commune with the general assembly and church of the Firstborn, and to enjoy the communion and presence of God the Father, and Jesus the mediator of the new covenant." (DC107:19 (see D&C 84:19-23))

"He had reference to those whom God should call in the last days, who should hold the power of priesthood to bring again Zion, and the redemption of Israel; and to put on her strength is to put on the authority of the priesthood, which she, Zion, has a right to by lineage; also to return to that power which she had lost." (DC113:8)


Melchizedek and his people also achieved Zion, and became a part of the Assembly of the Firstborn. This is why the priesthood is able to bear the name Melchizedek as a substitute for the Son of God.
JST Genesis 14:25-40
25 And Melchizedek lifted up his voice and blessed Abram.
26 Now Melchizedek was a man of faith, who wrought righteousness; and when a child, he feared God, and stopped the mouths of lions, and quenched the violence of fire.
27 And thus, having been approved of God, he was ordained a high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
28 It being after the order of the Son of God, which order came not by man, nor the will of man, neither by father nor mother, neither by beginning of days nor end of years, but of God.
29 And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto as many as believed on his name--
30 For God, having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself that everyone being ordained after this order and calling should have power, by faith, to break mountains, to divide the seas, to dry up waters, to turn them out of their course,
31 To put at defiance the armies of nations, to divide the earth, to break every band, to stand in the presence of God, to do all things according to his will, according to his command, subdue principalities and powers; and this by the will of the Son of God which was from before the foundation of the world.
32 And men having this faith, coming up unto this order of God, were translated and taken up into heaven.
33 And now, Melchizedek was a priest of this order; therefore, he obtained peace in Salem and was called the prince of peace.
34 And his people wrought righteousness, and obtained heaven, and sought for the city of Enoch which God had before taken, separating it from the earth, having reserved it unto the latter days, or the end of the world,
35 And hath said, and sworn with an oath, that the heavens and the earth should come together and the sons of God should be tried so as by fire.
36 And this Melchizedek, having thus established righteousness, was called the king of heaven by his people, or, in other words, the king of peace.
37 And he lifted up his voice, and he blessed Abram, being the high priest and the keeper of the storehouse of God,
38 Him whom God had appointed to receive tithes for the poor.
39 Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.
40 And it came to pass that God blessed Abram and gave unto him riches, and honor, and lands for an everlasting possession, according to the covenant which he had made and according to the blessing wherewith Melchizedek had blessed him.


And the 1828 Websters definition since these come from the JST and D&C
No. I'm not sure what that all is meant to say, but fulness and completeness means totality. If one part is missing, then there is no fullness. So when baptisms for the dead is missing, there is no fullness.
Ok I have nothing against that.

Now even with baptisms for the dead, we still don't have the fulness, not collectively.

Of course, God may bestow His fulness as He wills like Elijah or Nephi son of Helaman.

User avatar
gruden2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1465

Re: I'm confused;

Post by gruden2.0 »

cab wrote: October 29th, 2022, 12:27 am I know, for me personally, I can not unsee what I have seen. And I could never deny what I believe the Lord has shown me about where we are as a people. And I’d never want to unsee it, for my relationship with and understanding of Him and His purposes has blossomed as a result.
Decades ago, when I was a bit young to understand it, I was shown in a dream that it was a large field with dried-up bushes and trees. Those that were spiritually alive tried with great difficulty to push through the field to get to something of value. So you have greater and lesser spirits that are spiritually dead/inert/unproductive. While I did not see it in a dream, it was quite clear the field was ready to be burned.

User avatar
Shawn Henry
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4507

Re: I'm confused;

Post by Shawn Henry »

Jashon wrote: October 30th, 2022, 1:25 pm I'd be interested in reading about that name change. Do you have a link on that you could share? And when did they re-insert Jesus Christ in the name?
I couldn't find that particular topic, I'm not at all organized on my computer. I learned of it from a blogger who goes by Watcher or onewhoiswatching. He has a series called the 4 part history of Mormonism that is pretty good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NRWs38Ux7A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0HnqHsXDoY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDC5AQgNajg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj4xOHvMkpQ

I think I messed those 4 together, oops.

He also has a great book called Solving the Prophet Puzzle, I highly recommend it. He has 3 blog sites as well.

FoundMyEden
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1240

Re: I'm confused;

Post by FoundMyEden »

Artaxerxes wrote: October 27th, 2022, 5:10 pm
Nevervaxxed wrote: October 27th, 2022, 4:39 pm I have been active LDS virtually my entire life. I've been in Bishoprics, been YM Pres, EQ Pres, High Councilman, etc... but when the 1st presidency began urging membership to get the clot shot, followed by many of the brethren declaring these killer jabs as "safe & effective", I was deeply disturbed, and it's only gotteen worse, especially as I've seen friends and family die and/or have serious health problems from them. Since then, my eyes have been opened, and I'm more confused than ever. It seems like a lot of if not most of church h leadership have become "woke". We seen large donations of tithes and offerings going to woke (Satanic) organizations like the UN. I hear brethren basically regurgitating leftist talking points, especially about non-existent "racism", such as what happened at BYU Women's volleyball, where none of what was accussed happened. I'm bewildered. Things about the church that never bothered me before are now very disconcerting, such as the similarities between our temple ordinances & signs and the Masonic lodge. Now I'm seeing multiple accusations toward the church as being part of a CIA mind control program called Monarch, and accusations of long term physical and serial abuse of children as part of this program. I'm hearing about the "Left hand of God" within the LDS church, and many of those making the allegations don't appear to have much to gain by doing so. I'm truly confused.

While I still have a strong testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as of right now I have zero faith in the church as an organization. Has the church h "fallen"? If so, how long ago? Or are many of the leaders being deceived? Am I being deceived? How can I pay tithes that are given to satanic organization?

Bottom line; it is indeed a hard time, where evil is declared good, and vice versa. I'm hoping joining this forum and listening to those on this board can help me find peace, whether in the church, or outside it but still within the gospel of Christ.
It sounds like the church hasn't changed, but you have. That happens to lots of folk. If the Lord told you before that this was His church, then it still is. If He hasn't, then you need to ask if it is.
In 3,2,1..."LET THE GASLIGHTING...BEGIN!"

FoundMyEden
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1240

Re: I'm confused;

Post by FoundMyEden »

Welcome! And may God continue to bless you along this great and spacious...journey. You are on the narrow path.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 9:12 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:51 am
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:43 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:11 am

Jesus said to render unto Cesaer what is Cesaer's and that his kingdom was not of this world. There is no record of him challenging the authority and policies of Rome or the 'powers that be.'

My advice is to go back to church and pay your tithing while you work things out. You'll feel a lot better.
Yes Jesus after all picked Matthew as a disciple. He must have supported his work as a tax collector.

Not to mention that is a very shallow interpretation of render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.

This is a good start
Let's not move the goal posts. I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do.
That is not moving the goal post, nothing of the sort. That is sarcasm.

Also don't try to pigeonhole this into a strawman that you prefer.

His first mission was primarily spiritual, as he was about his Father's business. Despite that you need to understand what Christ taught better according to the world view at the time.

He was meek, not weak. Turn the other cheek for instance does not mean to let yourself to be hit again, rather it means to stand up as an equal. It's a stance of humble courage, even defiance.

In addition, see more what the prophets taught, especially in the Book of Mormon which was prepared for our day.

Again this is a good start. It's by a church member. Give it a read.
I didn't set up a strawman argument. I said that there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority. In fact this is one of the reasons why most of the Pharisees didn't like him and didn't recognize him as the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to lead them in rebelling against Rome, but Christ didn't do that.

The church's mission is also spiritual. The church isn't here to tell us to rebel against the governments of this world.

And "turn the other cheek" does mean to allow yourself to be hit again and not fight back. Look at what the apostles endured after his death. They were living examples of this principle.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: I'm confused;

Post by ransomme »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 1st, 2022, 6:14 am
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 9:12 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:51 am
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:43 am

Yes Jesus after all picked Matthew as a disciple. He must have supported his work as a tax collector.

Not to mention that is a very shallow interpretation of render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.

This is a good start
Let's not move the goal posts. I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do.
That is not moving the goal post, nothing of the sort. That is sarcasm.

Also don't try to pigeonhole this into a strawman that you prefer.

His first mission was primarily spiritual, as he was about his Father's business. Despite that you need to understand what Christ taught better according to the world view at the time.

He was meek, not weak. Turn the other cheek for instance does not mean to let yourself to be hit again, rather it means to stand up as an equal. It's a stance of humble courage, even defiance.

In addition, see more what the prophets taught, especially in the Book of Mormon which was prepared for our day.

Again this is a good start. It's by a church member. Give it a read.
I didn't set up a strawman argument. I said that there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority. In fact this is one of the reasons why most of the Pharisees didn't like him and didn't recognize him as the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to lead them in rebelling against Rome, but Christ didn't do that.

The church's mission is also spiritual. The church isn't here to tell us to rebel against the governments of this world.

And "turn the other cheek" does mean to allow yourself to be hit again and not fight back. Look at what the apostles endured after his death. They were living examples of this principle.
You oversimplified and exaggerated what is being discussed.

You said, "I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do."

1st no one came close to making a claim that "Christ supported everything Ceasar and the Romans were doing." This is an absurd distortion of what was being discussed.
2nd you have a similar problem in saying, "there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority" as if that was being said.

You made exaggerated arguments against extreme examples. Those extreme misrepresentations are your strawmen.

Also
Stop it get some help.jpg
Stop it get some help.jpg (28.16 KiB) Viewed 992 times
Try researching what turn the other cheek actually means. Honestly, we may never recover the true exact meaning. They are possibly idiomatic phrases and perhaps bad translations. Either way, cultural context is key.
"That ye resist not evil:" - Jesus is not saying submit to evil
"but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - what was the meaning of the "RIGHT" cheek? The are cultural understandings that are needed here.

https://nazarenejudaism.com/?page_id=1100

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: I'm confused;

Post by cab »

gruden2.0 wrote: October 30th, 2022, 3:13 pm
cab wrote: October 29th, 2022, 12:27 am I know, for me personally, I can not unsee what I have seen. And I could never deny what I believe the Lord has shown me about where we are as a people. And I’d never want to unsee it, for my relationship with and understanding of Him and His purposes has blossomed as a result.
Decades ago, when I was a bit young to understand it, I was shown in a dream that it was a large field with dried-up bushes and trees. Those that were spiritually alive tried with great difficulty to push through the field to get to something of value. So you have greater and lesser spirits that are spiritually dead/inert/unproductive. While I did not see it in a dream, it was quite clear the field was ready to be burned.

The question is whether or not it will be burned due to uselessness, or because there was a great harvest of ripe grains, and now just chaff left?

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:45 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 1st, 2022, 6:14 am
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 9:12 am
LDS Watchman wrote: October 30th, 2022, 7:51 am

Let's not move the goal posts. I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do.
That is not moving the goal post, nothing of the sort. That is sarcasm.

Also don't try to pigeonhole this into a strawman that you prefer.

His first mission was primarily spiritual, as he was about his Father's business. Despite that you need to understand what Christ taught better according to the world view at the time.

He was meek, not weak. Turn the other cheek for instance does not mean to let yourself to be hit again, rather it means to stand up as an equal. It's a stance of humble courage, even defiance.

In addition, see more what the prophets taught, especially in the Book of Mormon which was prepared for our day.

Again this is a good start. It's by a church member. Give it a read.
I didn't set up a strawman argument. I said that there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority. In fact this is one of the reasons why most of the Pharisees didn't like him and didn't recognize him as the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to lead them in rebelling against Rome, but Christ didn't do that.

The church's mission is also spiritual. The church isn't here to tell us to rebel against the governments of this world.

And "turn the other cheek" does mean to allow yourself to be hit again and not fight back. Look at what the apostles endured after his death. They were living examples of this principle.
You oversimplified and exaggerated what is being discussed.

You said, "I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do."

1st no one came close to making a claim that "Christ supported everything Ceasar and the Romans were doing." This is an absurd distortion of what was being discussed.
2nd you have a similar problem in saying, "there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority" as if that was being said.

You made exaggerated arguments against extreme examples. Those extreme misrepresentations are your strawmen.

Also Stop it get some help.jpg
Try researching what turn the other cheek actually means. Honestly, we may never recover the true exact meaning. They are possibly idiomatic phrases and perhaps bad translations. Either way, cultural context is key.
"That ye resist not evil:" - Jesus is not saying submit to evil
"but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - what was the meaning of the "RIGHT" cheek? The are cultural understandings that are needed here.

https://nazarenejudaism.com/?page_id=1100
Show me the evidence that Jesus stood up to the Roman authority and encouraged people to rebel against the authority of Rome.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: I'm confused;

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 7:03 am
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:45 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 1st, 2022, 6:14 am
ransomme wrote: October 30th, 2022, 9:12 am

That is not moving the goal post, nothing of the sort. That is sarcasm.

Also don't try to pigeonhole this into a strawman that you prefer.

His first mission was primarily spiritual, as he was about his Father's business. Despite that you need to understand what Christ taught better according to the world view at the time.

He was meek, not weak. Turn the other cheek for instance does not mean to let yourself to be hit again, rather it means to stand up as an equal. It's a stance of humble courage, even defiance.

In addition, see more what the prophets taught, especially in the Book of Mormon which was prepared for our day.

Again this is a good start. It's by a church member. Give it a read.
I didn't set up a strawman argument. I said that there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority. In fact this is one of the reasons why most of the Pharisees didn't like him and didn't recognize him as the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to lead them in rebelling against Rome, but Christ didn't do that.

The church's mission is also spiritual. The church isn't here to tell us to rebel against the governments of this world.

And "turn the other cheek" does mean to allow yourself to be hit again and not fight back. Look at what the apostles endured after his death. They were living examples of this principle.
You oversimplified and exaggerated what is being discussed.

You said, "I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do."

1st no one came close to making a claim that "Christ supported everything Ceasar and the Romans were doing." This is an absurd distortion of what was being discussed.
2nd you have a similar problem in saying, "there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority" as if that was being said.

You made exaggerated arguments against extreme examples. Those extreme misrepresentations are your strawmen.

Also Stop it get some help.jpg
Try researching what turn the other cheek actually means. Honestly, we may never recover the true exact meaning. They are possibly idiomatic phrases and perhaps bad translations. Either way, cultural context is key.
"That ye resist not evil:" - Jesus is not saying submit to evil
"but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - what was the meaning of the "RIGHT" cheek? The are cultural understandings that are needed here.

https://nazarenejudaism.com/?page_id=1100
Show me the evidence that Jesus stood up to the Roman authority and encouraged people to rebel against the authority of Rome.
Are the Roman Colosseum murder of Christians good enough, or...

The Gospel itself is a direct affront to their law at the time. And soon to be outlawed everywhere.

To statists, anyone worshipping a God above the state itself, is considered open rebellion/sedition.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:21 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 7:03 am
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:45 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 1st, 2022, 6:14 am

I didn't set up a strawman argument. I said that there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority. In fact this is one of the reasons why most of the Pharisees didn't like him and didn't recognize him as the Messiah. They expected the Messiah to lead them in rebelling against Rome, but Christ didn't do that.

The church's mission is also spiritual. The church isn't here to tell us to rebel against the governments of this world.

And "turn the other cheek" does mean to allow yourself to be hit again and not fight back. Look at what the apostles endured after his death. They were living examples of this principle.
You oversimplified and exaggerated what is being discussed.

You said, "I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do."

1st no one came close to making a claim that "Christ supported everything Ceasar and the Romans were doing." This is an absurd distortion of what was being discussed.
2nd you have a similar problem in saying, "there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority" as if that was being said.

You made exaggerated arguments against extreme examples. Those extreme misrepresentations are your strawmen.

Also Stop it get some help.jpg
Try researching what turn the other cheek actually means. Honestly, we may never recover the true exact meaning. They are possibly idiomatic phrases and perhaps bad translations. Either way, cultural context is key.
"That ye resist not evil:" - Jesus is not saying submit to evil
"but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - what was the meaning of the "RIGHT" cheek? The are cultural understandings that are needed here.

https://nazarenejudaism.com/?page_id=1100
Show me the evidence that Jesus stood up to the Roman authority and encouraged people to rebel against the authority of Rome.
Are the Roman Colosseum murder of Christians good enough, or...

The Gospel itself is a direct affront to their law at the time. And soon to be outlawed everywhere.

To statists, anyone worshipping a God above the state itself, is considered open rebellion/sedition.
So no actual evidence of Christ encouraging people to rebel against Rome then?

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: I'm confused;

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:23 am
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:21 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 7:03 am
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:45 am

You oversimplified and exaggerated what is being discussed.

You said, "I didn't say that Christ supported everything Cesar and the Romans were doing. But he there's no evidence whatsoever that he "stood against" them and encouraged others to flaunt what they were requiring them to do."

1st no one came close to making a claim that "Christ supported everything Ceasar and the Romans were doing." This is an absurd distortion of what was being discussed.
2nd you have a similar problem in saying, "there's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus Christ told anyone to stand up to the Roman's and flaunt their authority" as if that was being said.

You made exaggerated arguments against extreme examples. Those extreme misrepresentations are your strawmen.

Also Stop it get some help.jpg
Try researching what turn the other cheek actually means. Honestly, we may never recover the true exact meaning. They are possibly idiomatic phrases and perhaps bad translations. Either way, cultural context is key.
"That ye resist not evil:" - Jesus is not saying submit to evil
"but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." - what was the meaning of the "RIGHT" cheek? The are cultural understandings that are needed here.

https://nazarenejudaism.com/?page_id=1100
Show me the evidence that Jesus stood up to the Roman authority and encouraged people to rebel against the authority of Rome.
Are the Roman Colosseum murder of Christians good enough, or...

The Gospel itself is a direct affront to their law at the time. And soon to be outlawed everywhere.

To statists, anyone worshipping a God above the state itself, is considered open rebellion/sedition.
So no actual evidence of Christ encouraging people to rebel against Rome then?
Maybe you misunderstood... Simply being a Christian was rebellion against Rome.

Soon, you will understand firsthand what they went through. We all will.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:25 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:23 am
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:21 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 7:03 am

Show me the evidence that Jesus stood up to the Roman authority and encouraged people to rebel against the authority of Rome.
Are the Roman Colosseum murder of Christians good enough, or...

The Gospel itself is a direct affront to their law at the time. And soon to be outlawed everywhere.

To statists, anyone worshipping a God above the state itself, is considered open rebellion/sedition.
So no actual evidence of Christ encouraging people to rebel against Rome then?
Maybe you misunderstood... Simply being a Christian was rebellion against Rome.

Soon, you will understand firsthand what they went through. We all will.
No, simply believing in Christ was not rebellion against Rome. Certainly not while Christ was alive.

In any event, you know that there's no evidence that Christ encouraged rebellion against Roman authority.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: I'm confused;

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:31 am
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:25 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:23 am
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:21 am

Are the Roman Colosseum murder of Christians good enough, or...

The Gospel itself is a direct affront to their law at the time. And soon to be outlawed everywhere.

To statists, anyone worshipping a God above the state itself, is considered open rebellion/sedition.
So no actual evidence of Christ encouraging people to rebel against Rome then?
Maybe you misunderstood... Simply being a Christian was rebellion against Rome.

Soon, you will understand firsthand what they went through. We all will.
No, simply believing in Christ was not rebellion against Rome. Certainly not while Christ was alive.

In any event, you know that there's no evidence that Christ encouraged rebellion against Roman authority.


Why did Peter deny Christ 3 times?

User avatar
gruden2.0
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1465

Re: I'm confused;

Post by gruden2.0 »

cab wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:46 am
gruden2.0 wrote: October 30th, 2022, 3:13 pm
cab wrote: October 29th, 2022, 12:27 am I know, for me personally, I can not unsee what I have seen. And I could never deny what I believe the Lord has shown me about where we are as a people. And I’d never want to unsee it, for my relationship with and understanding of Him and His purposes has blossomed as a result.
Decades ago, when I was a bit young to understand it, I was shown in a dream that it was a large field with dried-up bushes and trees. Those that were spiritually alive tried with great difficulty to push through the field to get to something of value. So you have greater and lesser spirits that are spiritually dead/inert/unproductive. While I did not see it in a dream, it was quite clear the field was ready to be burned.

The question is whether or not it will be burned due to uselessness, or because there was a great harvest of ripe grains, and now just chaff left?
Given your choices, I would say uselessness.
The imagery was not of grain, it was of trees, which have a spiritual significance (Joseph notes it once or twice in TPJS). There was more to the dream; I saw a gathering in the center, but I was not shown the final outcome, although it was easy to guess.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:43 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:31 am
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:25 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:23 am

So no actual evidence of Christ encouraging people to rebel against Rome then?
Maybe you misunderstood... Simply being a Christian was rebellion against Rome.

Soon, you will understand firsthand what they went through. We all will.
No, simply believing in Christ was not rebellion against Rome. Certainly not while Christ was alive.

In any event, you know that there's no evidence that Christ encouraged rebellion against Roman authority.


Why did Peter deny Christ 3 times?
Because he was afraid for his life. And Christ told him that he would.

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: I'm confused;

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:29 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:43 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:31 am
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:25 am

Maybe you misunderstood... Simply being a Christian was rebellion against Rome.

Soon, you will understand firsthand what they went through. We all will.
No, simply believing in Christ was not rebellion against Rome. Certainly not while Christ was alive.

In any event, you know that there's no evidence that Christ encouraged rebellion against Roman authority.


Why did Peter deny Christ 3 times?
Because he was afraid for his life. And Christ told him that he would.
Now why in the world would Peter be afraid for his life?

Do you not know that Christ's commandment to take up our cross is indeed an act of open rebellion? The Romans certainly saw it that way. Now, I agree with you that Christ never directly said to go out and kill those that we deem as tyrants, but please understand that at the time, Christ knew that what He was doing was certainly rebellion! The early Christians knew this perfectly well too.

Alternatively, think to the Book of Mormon... Remember how it was that they were actually able to rid their society of secret combinations for a space of many years? How did they accomplish that?

Or perhaps, think to a time more recent.. the revolutionary war.


"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:02 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:29 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:43 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:31 am

No, simply believing in Christ was not rebellion against Rome. Certainly not while Christ was alive.

In any event, you know that there's no evidence that Christ encouraged rebellion against Roman authority.


Why did Peter deny Christ 3 times?
Because he was afraid for his life. And Christ told him that he would.
Now why in the world would Peter be afraid for his life?

Do you not know that Christ's commandment to take up our cross is indeed an act of open rebellion? The Romans certainly saw it that way. Now, I agree with you that Christ never directly said to go out and kill those that we deem as tyrants, but please understand that at the time, Christ knew that what He was doing was certainly rebellion! The early Christians knew this perfectly well too.

Alternatively, think to the Book of Mormon... Remember how it was that they were actually able to rid their society of secret combinations for a space of many years? How did they accomplish that?

Or perhaps, think to a time more recent.. the revolutionary war.


"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson
Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: I'm confused;

Post by ransomme »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:24 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:02 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:29 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 8:43 am



Why did Peter deny Christ 3 times?
Because he was afraid for his life. And Christ told him that he would.
Now why in the world would Peter be afraid for his life?

Do you not know that Christ's commandment to take up our cross is indeed an act of open rebellion? The Romans certainly saw it that way. Now, I agree with you that Christ never directly said to go out and kill those that we deem as tyrants, but please understand that at the time, Christ knew that what He was doing was certainly rebellion! The early Christians knew this perfectly well too.

Alternatively, think to the Book of Mormon... Remember how it was that they were actually able to rid their society of secret combinations for a space of many years? How did they accomplish that?

Or perhaps, think to a time more recent.. the revolutionary war.


"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson
Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.
It's unfortunately not ironic that you advise others of moving the goalpost, and now yours is standing far from what anyone actually said.

"that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome."

This goal post is on the next field over and it's the wrong kind of football 🏈 vs⚽

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:29 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:24 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:02 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:29 pm

Because he was afraid for his life. And Christ told him that he would.
Now why in the world would Peter be afraid for his life?

Do you not know that Christ's commandment to take up our cross is indeed an act of open rebellion? The Romans certainly saw it that way. Now, I agree with you that Christ never directly said to go out and kill those that we deem as tyrants, but please understand that at the time, Christ knew that what He was doing was certainly rebellion! The early Christians knew this perfectly well too.

Alternatively, think to the Book of Mormon... Remember how it was that they were actually able to rid their society of secret combinations for a space of many years? How did they accomplish that?

Or perhaps, think to a time more recent.. the revolutionary war.


"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson
Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.
It's unfortunately not ironic that you advise others of moving the goalpost, and now yours is standing far from what anyone actually said.

"that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome."

This goal post is on the next field over and it's the wrong kind of football 🏈 vs⚽

Again, I haven't moved the goal posts. InfoWarrior82 was literally saying that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome and I responded to that.

Your false accusations are lame. It's just an attempt to distract from the fact that you aren't able to provide any evidence to support your claims.

User avatar
cab
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2986
Location: ♫ I am a Mormon! ♫ And... dang it... a Mormon just believes! ♫

Re: I'm confused;

Post by cab »

gruden2.0 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 12:13 pm
cab wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:46 am
gruden2.0 wrote: October 30th, 2022, 3:13 pm
cab wrote: October 29th, 2022, 12:27 am I know, for me personally, I can not unsee what I have seen. And I could never deny what I believe the Lord has shown me about where we are as a people. And I’d never want to unsee it, for my relationship with and understanding of Him and His purposes has blossomed as a result.
Decades ago, when I was a bit young to understand it, I was shown in a dream that it was a large field with dried-up bushes and trees. Those that were spiritually alive tried with great difficulty to push through the field to get to something of value. So you have greater and lesser spirits that are spiritually dead/inert/unproductive. While I did not see it in a dream, it was quite clear the field was ready to be burned.

The question is whether or not it will be burned due to uselessness, or because there was a great harvest of ripe grains, and now just chaff left?
Given your choices, I would say uselessness.
The imagery was not of grain, it was of trees, which have a spiritual significance (Joseph notes it once or twice in TPJS). There was more to the dream; I saw a gathering in the center, but I was not shown the final outcome, although it was easy to guess.

Oh yes, so much significance to the tree. The word of Christ which has been planted in our hearts will serve to prune and nourish our heart soil until a new creation sprouts, a tree like unto the tree from which the seed came…. And when we become this tree growing after the order of everlasting life, our ministry will be to drop that fruit, sharing the love of God, to others…. Which fruit contains the seeds to produce new trees in any hearts that are soft soil. And so it is in the vineyard of the kingdom of God… His love begets new plantings and harvesting worlds upon end.

But when the ground becomes hardened and impenetrable, then necessitates the field to be cleared and burned and made ready for new, more receptive, and more useful soil.

User avatar
ransomme
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4013

Re: I'm confused;

Post by ransomme »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:37 pm
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:29 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:24 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:02 pm

Now why in the world would Peter be afraid for his life?

Do you not know that Christ's commandment to take up our cross is indeed an act of open rebellion? The Romans certainly saw it that way. Now, I agree with you that Christ never directly said to go out and kill those that we deem as tyrants, but please understand that at the time, Christ knew that what He was doing was certainly rebellion! The early Christians knew this perfectly well too.

Alternatively, think to the Book of Mormon... Remember how it was that they were actually able to rid their society of secret combinations for a space of many years? How did they accomplish that?

Or perhaps, think to a time more recent.. the revolutionary war.


"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson
Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.
It's unfortunately not ironic that you advise others of moving the goalpost, and now yours is standing far from what anyone actually said.

"that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome."

This goal post is on the next field over and it's the wrong kind of football 🏈 vs⚽

Again, I haven't moved the goal posts. InfoWarrior82 was literally saying that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome and I responded to that.

Your false accusations are lame. It's just an attempt to distract from the fact that you aren't able to provide any evidence to support your claims.
If he said it then why did you reply to me demanding that I answer as if I said it?

Oh boy...

Just remember to keep taking the words of the Bible at face value, and I'm sure that you'll be fine...
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil..."

User avatar
InfoWarrior82
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10861
Location: "There are 15 on the earth today, you can trust them completely." -President Nelson (Jan 2022)

Re: I'm confused;

Post by InfoWarrior82 »

LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:37 pm
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:29 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:24 pm
InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 1:02 pm

Now why in the world would Peter be afraid for his life?

Do you not know that Christ's commandment to take up our cross is indeed an act of open rebellion? The Romans certainly saw it that way. Now, I agree with you that Christ never directly said to go out and kill those that we deem as tyrants, but please understand that at the time, Christ knew that what He was doing was certainly rebellion! The early Christians knew this perfectly well too.

Alternatively, think to the Book of Mormon... Remember how it was that they were actually able to rid their society of secret combinations for a space of many years? How did they accomplish that?

Or perhaps, think to a time more recent.. the revolutionary war.


"Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God" Thomas Jefferson
Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.
It's unfortunately not ironic that you advise others of moving the goalpost, and now yours is standing far from what anyone actually said.

"that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome."

This goal post is on the next field over and it's the wrong kind of football 🏈 vs⚽

Again, I haven't moved the goal posts. InfoWarrior82 was literally saying that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome and I responded to that.

Your false accusations are lame. It's just an attempt to distract from the fact that you aren't able to provide any evidence to support your claims.


No, my point was that Christ understood that by simply following Him, this would automatically be seen as open rebellion against Rome.

We are commanded to stand in holy places and be not moved.
Last edited by InfoWarrior82 on November 3rd, 2022, 5:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

ransomme wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 12:42 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:37 pm
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:29 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:24 pm

Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.
It's unfortunately not ironic that you advise others of moving the goalpost, and now yours is standing far from what anyone actually said.

"that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome."

This goal post is on the next field over and it's the wrong kind of football 🏈 vs⚽

Again, I haven't moved the goal posts. InfoWarrior82 was literally saying that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome and I responded to that.

Your false accusations are lame. It's just an attempt to distract from the fact that you aren't able to provide any evidence to support your claims.
If he said it then why did you reply to me demanding that I answer as if I said it?

Oh boy...

Just remember to keep taking the words of the Bible at face value, and I'm sure that you'll be fine...
"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil..."
Huh?

You replied to a comment I made in response to InfoWarrior82 claiming that Jesus was calling for his followers to rebel against the authority of Rome to accuse me of moving the goal posts by saying that Jesus didn't do that.

What in the world is going in here?

As for Matthew 5:39, the old archaic KJV language is apparently confusing you. More modern translations are clear.

Jesus was saying, "do NOT resist an evil person who is wrongfully harming you."

New International Version
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

New Living Translation
But I say, do not resist an evil person! If someone slaps you on the right cheek, offer the other cheek also.

English Standard Version
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Berean Standard Bible
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also;

Berean Literal Bible
But I tell you not to resist the evil person. Instead, whoever shall strike you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

New King James Version
But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

New American Standard Bible
But I say to you, do not show opposition against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other toward him also.

NASB 1995
“But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

NASB 1977
“But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Amplified Bible
But I say to you, do not resist an evil person [who insults you or violates your rights]; but whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other toward him also [simply ignore insignificant insults or trivial losses and do not bother to retaliate—maintain your dignity, your self-respect, your poise].

Christian Standard Bible
But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
But I tell you, don’t resist an evildoer. On the contrary, if anyone slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.

American Standard Version
but I say unto you, Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
But I am saying to you, you shall not rise up against an evil person, but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other.

Contemporary English Version
But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But I say to you not to resist evil: but if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other:

Good News Translation
But now I tell you: do not take revenge on someone who wrongs you. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, let him slap your left cheek too.

International Standard Version
But I tell you not to resist an evildoer. On the contrary, whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.

Literal Standard Version
but I say to you not to resist the evil, but whoever will slap you on your right cheek, turn to him also the other;

New American Bible
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

NET Bible
But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.

New Revised Standard Version
But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

New Heart English Bible
But I tell you, do not set yourself against the one who is evil. But whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Weymouth New Testament
But I tell you not to resist a wicked man, but if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well.

World English Bible
But I tell you, don't resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Young's Literal Translation
but I -- I say to you, not to resist the evil, but whoever shall slap thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other;
https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-39.htm

LDS Watchman
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7390
Contact:

Re: I'm confused;

Post by LDS Watchman »

InfoWarrior82 wrote: November 3rd, 2022, 5:56 am
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:37 pm
ransomme wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:29 pm
LDS Watchman wrote: November 2nd, 2022, 5:24 pm

Peter was afraid of being arrested and put to death like the Savior. He had expressed a willingness before to die with Him, but this wasn't God's plan. He was needed to lead the church after the Savior’s death. So he denied him to save his life.

He wasn't afraid of rebellion against Rome either. That's not what the Savior was doing. Remember that Pilate found no fault with the Savior and wanted to let him go. It was the religious leaders of the Jews who were out to get Jesus.

I will say it again. There is ZERO evidence that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome. ZERO. In fact it's clear that he was NOT encouraging rebellion against Rome and instead preaching submission to Rome.
It's unfortunately not ironic that you advise others of moving the goalpost, and now yours is standing far from what anyone actually said.

"that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome."

This goal post is on the next field over and it's the wrong kind of football 🏈 vs⚽

Again, I haven't moved the goal posts. InfoWarrior82 was literally saying that the Savior was encouraging rebellion against Rome and I responded to that.

Your false accusations are lame. It's just an attempt to distract from the fact that you aren't able to provide any evidence to support your claims.


No, my point was that Christ understood that by simply following Him, this would automatically be seen as open rebellion against Rome.
If this is true, why did Pilate find no fault with him?

Locked