[TheRealThing]

It is the heart of the matter. The jewish people wanted a theocracy 1st and 2nd kings as well as the prophets tell of the story. Didn't work out so well, as we all know. A theocracy is not the answer if it was, the previous two books would not be useful.

Who owns the wealth of America?

God's plan was for the people of Israel to be governed by Judges, Samson for example. But because the people of Israel have seldom been satisfied to obey God, for a period beginning with King Saul and though God disapproved, He nonetheless allowed Israel to be ruled by a succession of Kings.

I hate to have to spring this on you but to be ruled by Judges IS a theocratic form of government, and it worked very well until the Jew rebelled, when the Lord at that point gave them what they demanded and what they deserved. So rather than having the God of the Universe to rule over them, they got a flawed and mistake prone mortal man. By the time of the prophet Malachi the Church had been restored to a position of power, which continued on through the the Roman occupation, as Pilate clearly dealt with the leaders of the established Church Orthodoxy at the time of Christ.

Tell the truth now, you're a Bernie supporter aren't you?

[tvtimeout]

God's plan was for the people of Israel to be governed by Judges, Samson for example. But because the people of Israel have seldom been satisfied to obey God, for a period beginning with King Saul and though God disapproved, He nonetheless allowed Israel to be ruled by a succession of Kings.

I hate to have to spring this on you but to be ruled by Judges IS a theocratic form of government, and it worked very well until the Jew rebelled, when the Lord at that point gave them what they demanded and what they deserved. So rather than having the God of the Universe to rule over them, they got a flawed and mistake prone mortal man. By the time of the prophet Malachi the Church had been restored to a position of power, which continued on through the the Roman occupation, as Pilate clearly dealt with the leaders of the established Church Orthodoxy at the time of Christ.

Tell the truth now, you're a Bernie supporter aren't you?

Amen brother that is what happened. I thought you were talking about the people in ACTS, which of course was ruled by the Roman Empire. They saw the destruction of the temple in 70ish AD.

As far as wealth is concerned, who owns it... again, one of my favorite things that the Teacher should us, and it still applies today.

I liked some of what Bernie had to say, I voted for him.

Also judging from a brief read from the comments above, I think you proved Urban S. point of how Christians jump from one leader to the next, with the example of the old testament, which also gives testimony of why the O.T. is still relevant for us today. I thank you for that.

This is fun. I really enjoy this.

[TheRealThing]

Amen brother that is what happened. I thought you were talking about the people in ACTS, which of course was ruled by the Roman Empire. They saw the destruction of the temple in 70ish AD.

As far as wealth is concerned, who owns it... again, one of my favorite things that the Teacher should us, and it still applies today.

I liked some of what Bernie had to say, I voted for him.

Also judging from a brief read from the comments above, I think you proved Urban S. point of how Christians jump from one leader to the next, with the example of the old testament, which also gives testimony of why the O.T. is still relevant for us today. I thank you for that.

This is fun. I really enjoy this.

So what's it gonna be, you going by Mr Fundamental or tvtime?

[TheRealThing]

Amen brother that is what happened. I thought you were talking about the people in ACTS, which of course was ruled by the Roman Empire. They saw the destruction of the temple in 70ish AD.

As far as wealth is concerned, who owns it... again, one of my favorite things that the Teacher should us, and it still applies today.

I liked some of what Bernie had to say, I voted for him.

Also judging from a brief read from the comments above, I think you proved Urban S. point of how Christians jump from one leader to the next, with the example of the old testament, which also gives testimony of why the O.T. is still relevant for us today. I thank you for that.

This is fun. I really enjoy this.

Posting under two names doesn't make you any more formidable a debate opponent, though I freely concede the three of us will likely never agree.

To your shallow points. Rome could not have cared less what was going down in Israel as long as things remained orderly. And even then only because tribute taxes don't come from chaos, said taxes being Caesar's only real interest. The point? The last thing Rome wanted was to get bogged down in the daily machinations of Israeli governance, thus the daily affairs of the nation Israel were allowed to function under the same theocratic fashion of her forefathers. As I mentioned which evidently got past you, Pilate ruled as Governor over Israel in the days of Christ, appointed of Caesar. Pilate feared an uprising among the Jews as the opposition between the Church Orthodoxy and The Savior, had come to a head. And because if news of the escalating foment reached Caesar, he would surely replace Pilate who would be in some amount of trouble or disfavor with Rome. Thus the appearances of the Lord before Pilate, who would have much preferred to wash his hands of the whole affair. The Church governed the people of Israel, but she was subject to the authority or Rome. That's why Publicans were so despised by the Jew as the yearly Roman taxation was as oppressive as it was ruthless.

Did you know that Roman citizens only paid a 5% rate of tax to the state? We Americans pay many times that amount and as I have said to you repeatedly. While it's true that government gives much of our tax dollars to the so-called poor, it is also true that Dems use the power of the same US Treasury to buy the votes of them who depend on that government money to live. Your hero Bernie Sanders would gleefully extort up to 90% from the taxpayer because he is a socialist. I knew you were a Bernie supporter by reading those shallowly conceived posts of yours.

Lastly, I'm not at all surprised to see that you and Sombrero are of kindred spirit. But as you say is your case, when somebody is a teacher, owns a number of businesses, is an inventor, and is a self defined entrepreneur in the green energy industry, a contractor and a Church leader among other things, I suppose he really needs to be more than guy. :biggrin:

[mr.fundamental]

Lol! I love Mr. Fundamental! I have done all the above that you have stated. Does that make me more of a person. Maybe, maybe not? Who owns the wealth in America?

[mr.fundamental]

Ok, if you say I have shallow points, I understand your position. I do not think you are shallow, just disagree, I am glad now that we agree that the folks in ACTS were under Roman control. I am glad to hear that you believe in the O.T., I am glad you take up the cross of Christianity and want to vote that way, I have asked repeatedly about consumerism and the idea of capitalism. You love it, I understand it, you work hard, you want things, you do not want things taken from you. I understand that. I just ask of all those things, who do they belong to?

[TheRealThing]

Lol! I love Mr. Fundamental! I have done all the above that you have stated. Does that make me more of a person. Maybe, maybe not? Who owns the wealth in America?

Right, and I'll bet you and mr.fundamental both just love Kevin Crumb.

[TheRealThing]

Ok, if you say I have shallow points, I understand your position. I do not think you are shallow, just disagree, I am glad now that we agree that the folks in ACTS were under Roman control. I am glad to hear that you believe in the O.T., I am glad you take up the cross of Christianity and want to vote that way, I have asked repeatedly about consumerism and the idea of capitalism. You love it, I understand it, you work hard, you want things, you do not want things taken from you. I understand that. I just ask of all those things, who do they belong to?

I'm sorry, am I speaking now with tvtimeout, mr.fundamental or Kevin?

[mr.fundamental]

Finally, why try to make democratic socialist a bad term, is it nothing more than a political stance. I will not demean a conservative or a republican or whatever someone wishes to call themselves. It is there political right to do so. Anyway, my friend, my brother, I hope for you happiness, I hope for you the love that the Teacher has shown me, even when I fail. I hope that we can all live up to the name Christian.

[mr.fundamental]

Jimmy

[TheRealThing]

Finally, why try to make democratic socialist a bad term, is it nothing more than a political stance. I will not demean a conservative or a republican or whatever someone wishes to call themselves. It is there political right to do so. Anyway, my friend, my brother, I hope for you happiness, I hope for you the love that the Teacher has shown me, even when I fail. I hope that we can all live up to the name Christian.

I'm nobody special and I don't wish you or anybody else any ill. I do prefer honest dealings however.

Abraham Job and other Patriarchs of Scripture were men of means. They led their families and saw to it that everybody had homes, They owned enough land in fact, so that sons daughters and servants could provide a living for themselves; On which they dug wells and farmed and livestock grazed. They built barns and storehouses in which they put the fruits of their vineyards and the increase of their husbandry. The Prodigal Son came back home to a father, who killed the fatted lamb for a celebration feast. Home was a place of plenty and sustenance. This idea being floated that a responsible living is somehow selfish, is absurd. Now, far be it from me to interject into what the Lord may have convinced you to do as your ministry. If you feel compelled to sell all that you have so that you may give to the poor or to share with those in your local Church, then who am I to question?

Our society is much different than that of Ancient Israel. But in both cases the Lord means what He says about the noble pursuit of making one's own way.
1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV)
8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

Men are to get up every day, put on their big boy pants and go out into this world to make a living. Not sit around crying about how hard things are or how financially unequal things are. But the home is where the family returns each day, and there we are to celebrate God's blessing. This thing about a socialized sharing is from the imagination of men like John Lennon and is in no way anything new. The Europeans love social democracies, and there such forms of government abound. They have not flourished though, and a quick glance at the IMF's 'Countries in Economic Crisis Status' reveals why. But in continually falling back on the idea that the entirety of Christendom is somehow bound to emulate the actions of the early Church as depicted in Acts, you are stretching things just a bit. A group of Christians did sell their possessions as the text indicates. But many do not believe that all Christians of the day sold their possessions to share with their Church brethren. Conflating the two concepts of Christian giving/sharing, which is 100% voluntary, with government controlled economic dependency of Bernie's vision, (otherwise known as socialism) is a pretty bizarre and convoluted idea. And BTW, do I need to point out that past the distributions of the Church as provided through tithing, the welfare system of that day was embodied in a practice called gleaning? People still had to go out to harvest (glean) produce still on the stalk, out in the corners of the farme's fields. Corn or wheat still had to be taken home and cooked. Imagine what the credit card toting recipients of this day would say to that?

But back to the early Church. Though we don't know how long those mentioned of the early Church 'had all things common,' as was the case in Acts chapter 4, we do know that by chapter 11 (which in my mind couldn't have been all that long a time), the Church in Judaea was in dire financial straits. The Church at Antioch determined at that point to send relief to those in Judaea. Now, in no way am I minimizing the incredible explosion of the Church of that day or the jaw dropping financial sacrifice of the Acts era Church. And though as I said, it was likely localized and did not continue in practice for a long time, it was in any case nothing short of awe inspiring. We bring the tithes into the storehouse, not for equitable distribution, but for use in the Lord's work as reason and The Spirit would direct. The Rich Ruler wanted to know what he needed to do in order to merit eternal life. Jesus said sell all that you have and give to the poor. But to say the sale of our goods to give to poor folks will save us is beyond heresy. The purpose of this account was so that the Lord could point out to him and us, that the only way to live is through faith, which is not of works but the gift of God, and that He must be first in our life. First in the Ruler's life was his great wealth.

Helping the poor is but a small thing in comparison to the charge of the Great Commission, and in my view we should not be too quick to pat ourselves on the back for doing it. Preaching and teaching in the name of Christ heads the list.