You don't answer direct questions. You avoid and waste time. I gave you plenty of opportunity. I showed patience.

Now, you will receive no further answers because you don't answer. You have turned out to be exactly as all the other non-answerers who come back simply asking more questions without having answered questions (I've even expressly stated are not rhetorical) and without admitting they've been caught in their own logical traps. I showed you things where the only appropriate reaction is the exact opposite of the approach of your last comment. You didn't acknowledge that you clearly and plainly were shown to have been hugely wrong.

I can't stand your devious style, Gary. The frame of mind that holds with all you hold about Paul and all the rest is consistent with outward manifestations of dishonesty. You've shown it here clearly.

No additional comments of yours will be accepted that are not fully repentant.

Go away.

As of right now, you aren't chosen.

The answers to your new questions are child's play.

You don't answer direct questions. You avoid and waste time. I gave you plenty of opportunity. I showed patience.

Now, you will receive no further answers because you don't answer. You have turned out to be exactly as all the other non-answerers who come back simply asking more questions without having answered questions (I've even expressly stated are not rhetorical) and without admitting they've been caught in their own logical traps. I showed you things where the only appropriate reaction is the exact opposite of the approach of your last comment. You didn't acknowledge that you clearly and plainly were shown to have been hugely wrong.

I can't stand your devious style, Gary. The frame of mind that holds with all you hold about Paul and all the rest is consistent with outward manifestations of dishonesty. You've shown it here clearly.

No additional comments of yours will be accepted that are not fully repentant.

Go away.

As of right now, you aren't chosen.

The answers to your new questions are child's play.

I have a few questions for you to see why you believe in Jesus in the first place.

Lets say you were in the time of Christ and had been immersed in the existing Law of Moses and traditions of the elders at that time.

Here comes Jesus and says things you can hardly believe because they 'seem' so contradictory to what both what you have been taught from the Law of Moses and what seems so plain to anyone that could even read it.

Jesus comes along and says 'Moses did not give you that bread from heaven...'

Anyone that could read could look at the response in John 6:30- "What sign will show us...our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

Does it actually say he gave them bread from heaven or does it not say he gave them bread from heaven?

Look in Exodus 16:4- "Then said the Lord unto Moses Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you..."

Another one is Jesus reply to the Jews in John 5:37-

"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape..."

Look back in Moses and see if there was ever recorded a time when any Israelites ever heard the voice of God or saw his shape.

If you look at Deut. 5:22-25 states unequivocally that the Israelites heard his voice at Sinai.

23- '...and it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness...

24-'...and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that god doth talk with man, and he liveth...

25-'...if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die...

26- '...For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived...'

Here again Jesus says: '...you have never seen his shape...'

It specifically states that the 70 elders saw God in Ex. 24:10-

"...And they saw the God of Israel..."

11-'...Also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

You may say 'all these issues can be resolved'- and I believe they can, but what I am wondering is HOW DO YOU resolve them?

Do you throw out parts of Moses writings like you throw out parts of Paul's writings? Do you sort through Moses and discard the scriptures that seem to contradict what Jesus said?

In your opinion, do the scriptures just consist of what Jesus quoted in the gospels? Is this where you really are?

I have a few questions for you to see why you believe in Jesus in the first place.

Lets say you were in the time of Christ and had been immersed in the existing Law of Moses and traditions of the elders at that time.

Here comes Jesus and says things you can hardly believe because they 'seem' so contradictory to what both what you have been taught from the Law of Moses and what seems so plain to anyone that could even read it.

Jesus comes along and says 'Moses did not give you that bread from heaven...'

Anyone that could read could look at the response in John 6:30- "What sign will show us...our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat."

Does it actually say he gave them bread from heaven or does it not say he gave them bread from heaven?

Look in Exodus 16:4- "Then said the Lord unto Moses Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you..."

Another one is Jesus reply to the Jews in John 5:37-

"And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape..."

Look back in Moses and see if there was ever recorded a time when any Israelites ever heard the voice of God or saw his shape.

If you look at Deut. 5:22-25 states unequivocally that the Israelites heard his voice at Sinai.

23- '...and it came to pass, when ye heard the voice out of the midst of the darkness...

24-'...and we have heard his voice out of the midst of the fire; we have seen this day that god doth talk with man, and he liveth...

25-'...if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die...

26- '...For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived...'

Here again Jesus says: '...you have never seen his shape...'

It specifically states that the 70 elders saw God in Ex. 24:10-

"...And they saw the God of Israel..."

11-'...Also they saw God, and did eat and drink."

You may say 'all these issues can be resolved'- and I believe they can, but what I am wondering is HOW DO YOU resolve them?

Do you throw out parts of Moses writings like you throw out parts of Paul's writings? Do you sort through Moses and discard the scriptures that seem to contradict what Jesus said?

In your opinion, do the scriptures just consist of what Jesus quoted in the gospels? Is this where you really are?

Well, it's usually about here that patience runs out with commentator/challengers, but for the sake of others (because I see you, Gary, as being completely intransigent right now), let me point out some huge sweeping errors in your comment.

First, when they asked Jesus about his authority, he said to judge his works. He came in the name of God. He said that God is his witness and that he, Jesus, also testifies of himself. He was addressing their shallow-minded and hardhearted criteria. Now, along comes Paul who claims the same and concerning whom we are also to judge by his works, his fruits (the results). So, we have his writings, and I mean all the Pauline Epistles regardless of whether, Saul of Tarsus actually authored them or not (if he didn't author some of them, the charges against those he didn't author won't stick to his soul in my book). What have been the results of the whole body of the Pauline Epistles relative to the results of the whole body of the recorded words and deeds of Jesus Christ? If Paul received everything from Jesus, then Paul will jibe with Jesus and his results will be consistent with Jesus's beginning, else Jesus is the author of any Pauline error or sin if it rises to that level.

Anyone can say of himself what Jesus said of himself. Anyone can say he has had visions and heard voices and received commandments from God — anyone, save for those who are physically or mentally handicapped to preclude such utterances. Therefore, Jesus says judge his works.

When I read Jesus's words and about his deeds and take all of them to their logical conclusions, I arrive at Heaven. Can I rightly say the same of the Pauline Epistles? I find that I cannot and for all the reasons I've cited and more.

You, Gary, have taken Paul's word for it. I have not. He very well may have had visions and heard voices. It's common in schizophrenia. They are all spiritual in my view, but the point is that people receive visions and words that are of an evil spirit, a self-deluding spirit. A guilty conscience can work upon the guilty in ways that cause that one to panic and to rush about nearly frantic to atone. It certainly can lead to further errors even if the intentions are vastly better than in the earlier part of the person's life.

Paul was extremely well educated despite some of his comments to the contrary. He appears to be self-deprecating when comparing himself to the "Super" Apostles, a telling label to me — his label of them that comes off as sarcastic and deriding. He also literally brags about rebuking poor Peter, who was Satan at one point and who actually stood up to the Sanhedrin in a manner superior to Paul's self-case pleading by Paul to the "authorities." If you don't like my view, no one is forcing you to read it. Simply not liking it though, doesn't make it false.

He went to Jerusalem after preaching of his freedom from the ceremonial laws and after slighting James and the others and then caved into undergoing the final stage of a ceremony at the temple.

The issue though is what are the results of people following Paul's words verbatim versus following Jesus's? If everyone had followed Jesus's words verbatim (and they are all the law of God — how you, Gary, may not know that is incredible to me; but you are ambiguous), then there would be no wars right now. There would be no capitalism, no banks, no debts, no taxes, and no money. There would be no homosexuality. There would be no H1N1, etc. There would be no death by now, frankly. People have though followed Paul's Epistles much more than they have followed Jesus's commandments/laws. Look at the result. Why is it? It is because Paul is easy to twist if any twisting is even required, and I think none is.

Now, Gary, the whole first part of your last comment is just your assertion concerning Paul. None of the Apostles was Jesus or was Christ. Each remained capable of errors and did in fact make them. Why do you have such a problem with that fact?

The phrase 'I put it to every Pauline' implies that people who have received Paul as being sent by God are somehow in a different grouping than people who believe only in the other apostles who were likewise called and sent of God.

It doesn't imply it. It says it flat out on purpose. The name is for the category. The letters are called Pauline and there are the Paulines versus others who also profess Christianity. That's a fact.

The same Jesus that sent out the 12 and the 70 also sent out Paul.

Why? You base this on scripture (which by the way is a term of a number of connotations naturally subject to context). So, that's your opinion. I have never said that the spirit of Jesus never worked on Paul. What I am saying is that a great tree rose up and produced lousy fruit. The fruit of the Roman Catholic tree and Calvinist tree and the others tastes like crap. It isn't fit for Heaven. Those trees need such radical pruning and have had centuries now to bring forth fitting fruit that those trees have been cumbering the ground too long. They are the old wineskin and always were and always will be until gone.

Your comparison of what I am saying and the argument of the Pharisees is ridiculous. Moses gave them their law. Jesus came and enhanced understanding. Paul retarded from Jesus's revelation and worse. Where is the comparison? As I said, Jesus told them to judge his works. My work is the Christian Commons Project. What's yours?

You claim to believe Jesus 100% of the time, yet you don't receive Paul in the same way you receive Jesus or the other apostles.

Speak for yourself, Gary. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken. Before you can make this charge of yours against me stick, you must know me as God knows me. The truth is that when I compare the writings of John in general to those attributed to Paul, I definitely do find John's writings closer to the Christ-spirit and mind. Yet, I am not John. I have a strong affinity for John the Baptist too, but I am not John the Baptist. Watch yourself, Gary.

In addition, I have not judged and condemned Paul. I have not, not received him. I have probed and found his teachings wanting. I don't need or want his emendations of Jesus's Gospel. Jesus did not send everything Paul wrote. Look, Jesus never said how the chairs are arranged. He didn't know. He knew he couldn't finalize it. That's how it is.

Abraham is with God according to Jesus, but Abraham didn't know while Abraham was on this Earth what Jesus knew while Jesus was here. Had Abraham been introduced to Jesus's teachings, Jesus is more than suggesting that Abraham would have accepted. Now you have to ask yourself whether Paul would take back any of what he wrote in light of what I'm saying here.

Why don't I call you a 'Markene' or a 'Johnene' or a 'Matthite?' Because there are no such subgroups according to the Jesus you believe 100% of the time.

There are Lutherans and Calvinists. There are Roman Catholics. There are those who call themselves "Johannine Christians." These people and many, many others set themselves apart. They differentiate. You deny this. So, are the Mormons Christians in your book too? They aren't in mine.

Try answering that direct question and then deal with the implications. Answer why the Mormons are or aren't Christians, and then tell me why drawing the line where you do is more correct than where I draw it. If you will be honest, you will admit that you are being arbitrary. I have used Jesus's standard, which I hold as being as objective as humanly possible. I see you as not using Jesus's standard. In determining whom and concerning specifically what Jesus sent, I use his standard. What do you use?

You ignore that Peter received directly from God that Jesus was the Messiah, but Jesus also called him Satan. Does that mean nothing to you? Don't you understand that God didn't work full time through the disciples, that they were not capable of it, that they waxed and waned in the spirit? You need to have a talk with God about all of this, which I do not at this point believe you have had.

What's your agenda here, Gary? I detect an enemy, not a friend of Jesus.

Your arguments that you've stated so emphatically, even with ALL CAPS in places for redundant emphasis, are all resting on Paul's testimony about himself. The others were all together with Jesus who chose them in front of one another. That alone isn't sufficient concerning questioning Paul; so, as I've said, I've applied Jesus's own law that is to look at the fruit, and I don't like Paul's fruit. If you don't like it that I don't like his fruit, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

You hold Paul out as being infallible. You haven't admitted it except that everything you've written here suggests it. Therefore, you hold with all his laws about head coverings and hair length and women not speaking in the congregation.

Are you married? Has your wife ever spoken up at a Church gathering? If so, did you tell her to shut up by appealing to Paul? If you aren't married and have never been in the position cited, would you tell your wife to shut up? Would you make her wear a head covering? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking you to answer the direct question with a direct yes or no. Qualify after answering yes or no or qualify and then answer yes or no, but answer yes or no one way or the other.

Are you a militarist?

Do you ever believe in the death penalty meted out by the secular powers, period, no exceptions?

The problem here is that if you don't receive Paul as being sent by God in the same way you receive the other apostles it is easy to say he was stressed out and that Satan got a hold of him and he was fallible and misled.

There's your suggestion that he was infallible (incapable of erring). Wow! Peter was not infallible in your book because you hold that Paul was.

Paul rebuked Peter for Peter's alleged error. Here you are though arguing against me by saying that I have to accept Paul as the equal of Christ because I "accept" Peter whom Paul rebuked for erring. What kind of logic is that? It's crap, Gary.

Are you embarrassed yet for coming here not to learn but to do what you have been leading up to, which is to try to defeat my Church before it has a chance to grow? That is how is see what you're doing here. You are here tempting with the utterly illogical. It isn't working. Yours are idle words here. Take care.

This type of thinking is leading you into being editor in chief of God's Word.

You grant that authority to Paul and others (various committees) but deny it to me based upon what? It certainly isn't based upon your superior understanding. You have shown yourself lacking here and without humility.

First he missed it on Rom. 13, then he misses it on the the proper role of women in the church, then he misses it on having the head covered, then you have made a rule that a person can not quote Paul if it is being used in any to vindicate the apostleship that Jesus himself gave to him.

To vindicate his errors, Gary, that's what I said in so many words that you misread wittingly or unwittingly.

He wrote partial truths. Take the truths and throw away the falsehoods.

If your making the claim that Jesus words are called scripture then please show me where that verse is.

Why? I show you plenty, and all you do is argue against it for naught.

You call everything I've written here about Paul's letters a problem, a problem, a problem. It is no problem to see the errors in Paul's writings. It is a problem not to.

If you are making the claim that Jesus word is called 'the law' then please show me where that verse is.

Do you have friends who call themselves Christians who hold that Jesus is the word? What are the Ten Commandments? What is the Law of Moses? What is the New Commandment? The Mosaic commandments are the laws of God but Jesus's commandments aren't. That's what you're claiming that you didn't know until right now? Your writing here is highly ambiguous on the subject. Yet, you are here Pontificating.

Look, identify yourself. Who are you? To which church do belong/attend or whatever and what is your denomination? Where is your creed that I may read it? If you are nondenominational and noncreedal or are not, with which theologian(s) to you most closely agree? Let's have something more than just this trickling out of errors.

Paul is not specifically saying NOT to pay taxes, he is just saying taxes are truly due only if the ruler is doing that which is right.

That was your position concerning Jesus too, but Caesar was not doing right. You are wrong, except you made ambiguous statements here about it. Ambiguity on such a central matter is wrong regardless.

The real issue that needs to be solved is to get rulers to come into line with Romans 13 so we can actually live the peaceable life in all godliness and honesty as Paul said in I Tim. 2:1-3.

You are absolutely wrong. The sword in Romans 13 is the always antichrist sword of capital punishment. Nothing you can do alters it. You have lost your debate, Gary. Admit it.

But do we contact them or do we blog about them? Do we realize that the taxes are not the real issue, rather it is just a symtom and that the tax would be appropriate and just if only they would deal with the evil and the good that God requires of them?

Wrong again. Try contacting Barack Obama directly. Did you recently read that his Town Hall questions are all prescreened? People had to submit questions by email. Where may I engage Obama in a debate? Right here, Gary. His people read this.

Also, taxes are a real issue among many. Taxes are inherently wrong. The whole system of mammon is wrong. Don't you know that? God actually requires that we end the evil system of mammon, Gary. Get with the plan.

Why intercede for those in authority if in the 'real' plan of God – all the evil things that rulers do will actually be for your good, and is actually God's will for them to do that evil?

God's will is not evil. You are confusing God allowing Satan to function with God's will. Satan is not doing God's will. You are using partial Old Testament thinking throughout. You aren't completely separating the Satanic spirit from the Spirit of God.

I don't know what this comment reply will do to you. Many others have been here with much the same attitude. They start out asking and then take to trying to rebuke me for cause. They all have come up short. Not one has apologized in total and been openly humbled. Not one has shown any cause that has withstood scrutiny. All have been shown to be illogical. What will you do now?

I am certainly not going to continue the pattern here so far with you. Either you admit you're wrong, or there can be no progress with you. For cause, I will cut off conversing with you as no true brother in Christ. No one who loves truth can deny that what I've written here to you is right. It's clear and plain.

Pope Benedict XVI just praised Calvin as a Christian. Well, naturally. Calvin was for beheading heretics. Well, I don't consider Calvin or Joseph Ratzinger to have been or to be Christians. Both of them believe(d) in Romans 13 that the temporal self-authorized powers (usurpers) wield the sword not in vain. Oh, it's in vain when wield against the righteous and innocent, as it so often has been, is being, and will be.

Now, I do have more important things than to beat a dead horse. Whether or not what has already gone between us bears good fruit with you is not up to me. I've done enough though toward you for righteousness sake.

Peace

Well, it's usually about here that patience runs out with commentator/challengers, but for the sake of others (because I see you, Gary, as being completely intransigent right now), let me point out some huge sweeping errors in your comment.

First, when they asked Jesus about his authority, he said to judge his works. He came in the name of God. He said that God is his witness and that he, Jesus, also testifies of himself. He was addressing their shallow-minded and hardhearted criteria. Now, along comes Paul who claims the same and concerning whom we are also to judge by his works, his fruits (the results). So, we have his writings, and I mean all the Pauline Epistles regardless of whether, Saul of Tarsus actually authored them or not (if he didn't author some of them, the charges against those he didn't author won't stick to his soul in my book). What have been the results of the whole body of the Pauline Epistles relative to the results of the whole body of the recorded words and deeds of Jesus Christ? If Paul received everything from Jesus, then Paul will jibe with Jesus and his results will be consistent with Jesus's beginning, else Jesus is the author of any Pauline error or sin if it rises to that level.

Anyone can say of himself what Jesus said of himself. Anyone can say he has had visions and heard voices and received commandments from God — anyone, save for those who are physically or mentally handicapped to preclude such utterances. Therefore, Jesus says judge his works.

When I read Jesus's words and about his deeds and take all of them to their logical conclusions, I arrive at Heaven. Can I rightly say the same of the Pauline Epistles? I find that I cannot and for all the reasons I've cited and more.

You, Gary, have taken Paul's word for it. I have not. He very well may have had visions and heard voices. It's common in schizophrenia. They are all spiritual in my view, but the point is that people receive visions and words that are of an evil spirit, a self-deluding spirit. A guilty conscience can work upon the guilty in ways that cause that one to panic and to rush about nearly frantic to atone. It certainly can lead to further errors even if the intentions are vastly better than in the earlier part of the person's life.

Paul was extremely well educated despite some of his comments to the contrary. He appears to be self-deprecating when comparing himself to the "Super" Apostles, a telling label to me — his label of them that comes off as sarcastic and deriding. He also literally brags about rebuking poor Peter, who was Satan at one point and who actually stood up to the Sanhedrin in a manner superior to Paul's self-case pleading by Paul to the "authorities." If you don't like my view, no one is forcing you to read it. Simply not liking it though, doesn't make it false.

He went to Jerusalem after preaching of his freedom from the ceremonial laws and after slighting James and the others and then caved into undergoing the final stage of a ceremony at the temple.

The issue though is what are the results of people following Paul's words verbatim versus following Jesus's? If everyone had followed Jesus's words verbatim (and they are all the law of God — how you, Gary, may not know that is incredible to me; but you are ambiguous), then there would be no wars right now. There would be no capitalism, no banks, no debts, no taxes, and no money. There would be no homosexuality. There would be no H1N1, etc. There would be no death by now, frankly. People have though followed Paul's Epistles much more than they have followed Jesus's commandments/laws. Look at the result. Why is it? It is because Paul is easy to twist if any twisting is even required, and I think none is.

Now, Gary, the whole first part of your last comment is just your assertion concerning Paul. None of the Apostles was Jesus or was Christ. Each remained capable of errors and did in fact make them. Why do you have such a problem with that fact?

The phrase 'I put it to every Pauline' implies that people who have received Paul as being sent by God are somehow in a different grouping than people who believe only in the other apostles who were likewise called and sent of God.

It doesn't imply it. It says it flat out on purpose. The name is for the category. The letters are called Pauline and there are the Paulines versus others who also profess Christianity. That's a fact.

The same Jesus that sent out the 12 and the 70 also sent out Paul.

Why? You base this on scripture (which by the way is a term of a number of connotations naturally subject to context). So, that's your opinion. I have never said that the spirit of Jesus never worked on Paul. What I am saying is that a great tree rose up and produced lousy fruit. The fruit of the Roman Catholic tree and Calvinist tree and the others tastes like crap. It isn't fit for Heaven. Those trees need such radical pruning and have had centuries now to bring forth fitting fruit that those trees have been cumbering the ground too long. They are the old wineskin and always were and always will be until gone.

Your comparison of what I am saying and the argument of the Pharisees is ridiculous. Moses gave them their law. Jesus came and enhanced understanding. Paul retarded from Jesus's revelation and worse. Where is the comparison? As I said, Jesus told them to judge his works. My work is the Christian Commons Project. What's yours?

You claim to believe Jesus 100% of the time, yet you don't receive Paul in the same way you receive Jesus or the other apostles.

Speak for yourself, Gary. Don't attempt to put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken. Before you can make this charge of yours against me stick, you must know me as God knows me. The truth is that when I compare the writings of John in general to those attributed to Paul, I definitely do find John's writings closer to the Christ-spirit and mind. Yet, I am not John. I have a strong affinity for John the Baptist too, but I am not John the Baptist. Watch yourself, Gary.

In addition, I have not judged and condemned Paul. I have not, not received him. I have probed and found his teachings wanting. I don't need or want his emendations of Jesus's Gospel. Jesus did not send everything Paul wrote. Look, Jesus never said how the chairs are arranged. He didn't know. He knew he couldn't finalize it. That's how it is.

Abraham is with God according to Jesus, but Abraham didn't know while Abraham was on this Earth what Jesus knew while Jesus was here. Had Abraham been introduced to Jesus's teachings, Jesus is more than suggesting that Abraham would have accepted. Now you have to ask yourself whether Paul would take back any of what he wrote in light of what I'm saying here.

Why don't I call you a 'Markene' or a 'Johnene' or a 'Matthite?' Because there are no such subgroups according to the Jesus you believe 100% of the time.

There are Lutherans and Calvinists. There are Roman Catholics. There are those who call themselves "Johannine Christians." These people and many, many others set themselves apart. They differentiate. You deny this. So, are the Mormons Christians in your book too? They aren't in mine.

Try answering that direct question and then deal with the implications. Answer why the Mormons are or aren't Christians, and then tell me why drawing the line where you do is more correct than where I draw it. If you will be honest, you will admit that you are being arbitrary. I have used Jesus's standard, which I hold as being as objective as humanly possible. I see you as not using Jesus's standard. In determining whom and concerning specifically what Jesus sent, I use his standard. What do you use?

You ignore that Peter received directly from God that Jesus was the Messiah, but Jesus also called him Satan. Does that mean nothing to you? Don't you understand that God didn't work full time through the disciples, that they were not capable of it, that they waxed and waned in the spirit? You need to have a talk with God about all of this, which I do not at this point believe you have had.

What's your agenda here, Gary? I detect an enemy, not a friend of Jesus.

Your arguments that you've stated so emphatically, even with ALL CAPS in places for redundant emphasis, are all resting on Paul's testimony about himself. The others were all together with Jesus who chose them in front of one another. That alone isn't sufficient concerning questioning Paul; so, as I've said, I've applied Jesus's own law that is to look at the fruit, and I don't like Paul's fruit. If you don't like it that I don't like his fruit, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it.

You hold Paul out as being infallible. You haven't admitted it except that everything you've written here suggests it. Therefore, you hold with all his laws about head coverings and hair length and women not speaking in the congregation.

Are you married? Has your wife ever spoken up at a Church gathering? If so, did you tell her to shut up by appealing to Paul? If you aren't married and have never been in the position cited, would you tell your wife to shut up? Would you make her wear a head covering? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking you to answer the direct question with a direct yes or no. Qualify after answering yes or no or qualify and then answer yes or no, but answer yes or no one way or the other.

Are you a militarist?

Do you ever believe in the death penalty meted out by the secular powers, period, no exceptions?

The problem here is that if you don't receive Paul as being sent by God in the same way you receive the other apostles it is easy to say he was stressed out and that Satan got a hold of him and he was fallible and misled.

There's your suggestion that he was infallible (incapable of erring). Wow! Peter was not infallible in your book because you hold that Paul was.

Paul rebuked Peter for Peter's alleged error. Here you are though arguing against me by saying that I have to accept Paul as the equal of Christ because I "accept" Peter whom Paul rebuked for erring. What kind of logic is that? It's crap, Gary.

Are you embarrassed yet for coming here not to learn but to do what you have been leading up to, which is to try to defeat my Church before it has a chance to grow? That is how is see what you're doing here. You are here tempting with the utterly illogical. It isn't working. Yours are idle words here. Take care.

This type of thinking is leading you into being editor in chief of God's Word.

You grant that authority to Paul and others (various committees) but deny it to me based upon what? It certainly isn't based upon your superior understanding. You have shown yourself lacking here and without humility.

First he missed it on Rom. 13, then he misses it on the the proper role of women in the church, then he misses it on having the head covered, then you have made a rule that a person can not quote Paul if it is being used in any to vindicate the apostleship that Jesus himself gave to him.

To vindicate his errors, Gary, that's what I said in so many words that you misread wittingly or unwittingly.

He wrote partial truths. Take the truths and throw away the falsehoods.

If your making the claim that Jesus words are called scripture then please show me where that verse is.

Why? I show you plenty, and all you do is argue against it for naught.

You call everything I've written here about Paul's letters a problem, a problem, a problem. It is no problem to see the errors in Paul's writings. It is a problem not to.

If you are making the claim that Jesus word is called 'the law' then please show me where that verse is.

Do you have friends who call themselves Christians who hold that Jesus is the word? What are the Ten Commandments? What is the Law of Moses? What is the New Commandment? The Mosaic commandments are the laws of God but Jesus's commandments aren't. That's what you're claiming that you didn't know until right now? Your writing here is highly ambiguous on the subject. Yet, you are here Pontificating.

Look, identify yourself. Who are you? To which church do belong/attend or whatever and what is your denomination? Where is your creed that I may read it? If you are nondenominational and noncreedal or are not, with which theologian(s) to you most closely agree? Let's have something more than just this trickling out of errors.

Paul is not specifically saying NOT to pay taxes, he is just saying taxes are truly due only if the ruler is doing that which is right.

That was your position concerning Jesus too, but Caesar was not doing right. You are wrong, except you made ambiguous statements here about it. Ambiguity on such a central matter is wrong regardless.

The real issue that needs to be solved is to get rulers to come into line with Romans 13 so we can actually live the peaceable life in all godliness and honesty as Paul said in I Tim. 2:1-3.

You are absolutely wrong. The sword in Romans 13 is the always antichrist sword of capital punishment. Nothing you can do alters it. You have lost your debate, Gary. Admit it.

But do we contact them or do we blog about them? Do we realize that the taxes are not the real issue, rather it is just a symtom and that the tax would be appropriate and just if only they would deal with the evil and the good that God requires of them?

Wrong again. Try contacting Barack Obama directly. Did you recently read that his Town Hall questions are all prescreened? People had to submit questions by email. Where may I engage Obama in a debate? Right here, Gary. His people read this.

Also, taxes are a real issue among many. Taxes are inherently wrong. The whole system of mammon is wrong. Don't you know that? God actually requires that we end the evil system of mammon, Gary. Get with the plan.

Why intercede for those in authority if in the 'real' plan of God – all the evil things that rulers do will actually be for your good, and is actually God's will for them to do that evil?

God's will is not evil. You are confusing God allowing Satan to function with God's will. Satan is not doing God's will. You are using partial Old Testament thinking throughout. You aren't completely separating the Satanic spirit from the Spirit of God.

I don't know what this comment reply will do to you. Many others have been here with much the same attitude. They start out asking and then take to trying to rebuke me for cause. They all have come up short. Not one has apologized in total and been openly humbled. Not one has shown any cause that has withstood scrutiny. All have been shown to be illogical. What will you do now?

I am certainly not going to continue the pattern here so far with you. Either you admit you're wrong, or there can be no progress with you. For cause, I will cut off conversing with you as no true brother in Christ. No one who loves truth can deny that what I've written here to you is right. It's clear and plain.

Pope Benedict XVI just praised Calvin as a Christian. Well, naturally. Calvin was for beheading heretics. Well, I don't consider Calvin or Joseph Ratzinger to have been or to be Christians. Both of them believe(d) in Romans 13 that the temporal self-authorized powers (usurpers) wield the sword not in vain. Oh, it's in vain when wield against the righteous and innocent, as it so often has been, is being, and will be.

Now, I do have more important things than to beat a dead horse. Whether or not what has already gone between us bears good fruit with you is not up to me. I've done enough though toward you for righteousness sake.

Peace

If you would delete it for me it would be appreciated.

Thank you- Gary

If you would delete it for me it would be appreciated.

Thank you- Gary

I am going to go back to your original argument about Rom. 13.

So, I put it to every Pauline. If the members of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate were
the minister[s] of God, … revenger[s] to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,
why did they murder Jesus?

The phrase 'I put it to every Pauline' implies that people who have received Paul as being sent by God are somehow in a different grouping than people who believe only in the other apostles who were likewise called and sent of God.

The same Jesus that sent out the 12 and the 70 also sent out Paul.

The similar thing happened with the Pharisees- after they reviled one of Jesus' disciples they said '...you are his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this man, we know not from whence he is.' (John 9:28-29)

Jesus rebuked them on their own grounds and said 'Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe my words?'
(John 45-47)

Look at this and see the similarities between your argument and the Pharisees.

They claimed they believed Moses, but they really didn't or else they would have believed Jesus who was sent by God and who Moses wrote about.

You claim to believe Jesus 100% of the time, yet you don't receive Paul in the same way you receive Jesus or the other apostles.

John, another one of Christ's apostles said this-

"...He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

You receive Jesus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke and John- all of whom were sent by God, but you put Paul in a different category and say those who believe him are "Paulines."

Why don't I call you a 'Markene' or a 'Johnene' or a 'Matthite?' Because there are no such subgroups according to the Jesus you believe 100% of the time.

He said universally 'he that receiveth WHOMSOEVER I SEND receiveth me.'

See how serious this is according to Jesus Christ. He is saying in essence that if we receive him that he sends- then we are receiving Him.

The opposite would also then be true, that if you don't receive him that he sends (Paul) then you are not receiving this Jesus, even though you say you believe him 100% of the time.

If you are going to quote Jesus as your source of authority then you MUST include this in your portfolio my friend.

If he indeed did send Paul, then what did he send him to do?

Look at what the Jesus that you agree with said about what he would do:

"But rise, and stand upon they feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." (Acts 26:16)

Remember what the apostle John said that Jesus said; 'He that receiveth him that I send receiveth me...'

Here we have what the apostle Paul said that Jesus told him; 'You will be a witness and a minister...' in what? In 'the things in which you have (already) seen and heard..' AND...

'...of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.' (later)

So we have Jesus plainly saying that there would be things that he would show Paul later. So is it any surprise that Paul comes and says 'I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord...?'

Is he tooting his own horn, or is just fulfilling what the same Jesus that you agree with had already told him on the road to Damascus?

The problem here is that if you don't receive Paul as being sent by God in the same way you receive the other apostles it is easy to say he was stressed out and that Satan got a hold of him and he was fallible and misled.

This type of thinking is leading you into being editor in chief of God's Word.

You hit Rom. 13 with a sledge hammer, and it is inevitable that the cracks are traveling throughout all his writings.

First he missed it on Rom. 13, then he misses it on the the proper role of women in the church, then he misses it on having the head covered, then you have made a rule that a person can not quote Paul if it is being used in any to vindicate the apostleship that Jesus himself gave to him.

You claim his writings are not scripture, or God's law or God's Word.

Their excuses always come back to the original distortion of Paul that they deemed and still wrongly deem to be Holy Scripture, which they were never. Paul's letters are not God's word or his law.

I have looked through all the times the word 'scripture' was used in the Bible and I have never seen Jesus' words directly called 'scripture.'

If your making the claim that Jesus words are called scripture then please show me where that verse is.

I have also looked at how the word 'law' was used in the gospels and have not found Jesus using that word directly referring to the words he spoke.

If you are making the claim that Jesus word is called 'the law' then please show me where that verse is.

The real link that leads us into the full implication of what God is saying is actually the word 'God's Word.'

From this vantage point, its easy see that the term, 'God's Word' is called both 'scripture' and 'God's law' as it is used extensively in the writings of both the law and the prophets and also of the apostles.

What is the actual meaning of the term 'scripture?'

#1124 Strongs-

A Document, i.e. holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it)

Seeing the word 'scripture' is not used directly in the gospels to refer to any of the words of Jesus- how say ye that gospels are scripture and Paul's epistles are not?

The words of some apostles such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are somehow 'holy writ' and yet the words of the apostle Paul are not?

The writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are 'documents' but the writings of Paul are not 'documents?'

The marginalization of Paul however, is not the complete problem, but rather just a symptom.

The beginning point of your argument starts with the assumption that Paul is saying all rulers are of God, all rulers are God's ministers, and all rulers are to be respected. You can't agree with that so you dismiss him as being in error.

Because of this assumption you blame Paul that he has been decieved by Satan and if he had only stood with Jesus much of the death and destruction would never have happened.

Another huge part of this problem is that you have dug your heels so deep into this concept that it would be very humbling for you to ever admit to being wrong.

Here is your first response to my first post:

So, Paul is saying not to follow the orders of evil rulers. Don't be subject to them, etc. Refuse their orders. Don't pay taxes to them (tribute of a sort – rendering to Caesar). You're trying to bring him into line with Jesus, but he still doesn't fit even with this backward attempt.

Paul is not specifically saying NOT to pay taxes, he is just saying taxes are truly due only if the ruler is doing that which is right.

Jesus agreed with this premise when he asked Peter of whom do the kings of the earth take tribute of their own or of strangers?

Jesus openly stated that the children were free which in turn tells us point blank that Jesus knew that the rulers were charging the tax unlawfully.

When the people come asking whether it is lawful to pay tribute or not- Jesus doesn't openly say Ceasar is a crook- even though he was- he is again careful not to offend because he knows the tax is just the symptom of the disease- not the cause.

In other words, the problem is not going to be solved by not paying taxes, its just going to be a stumblingblock to them. Lets look a little deeper at the word 'offend' in Theyers Concordance:

#2642- 'To cause one to judge unfavorably, OR UNJUSTLY of another.

We want to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, right? So we don't want to place a stumblingblock in front of them and give them a reason to unjustly blame us- remember they are sinners and we need to become all things to all men so we might win some.

The real issue that needs to be solved is to get rulers to come into line with Romans 13 so we can actually live the peaceable life in all godliness and honesty as Paul said in I Tim. 2:1-3.

The thing that is missing from this equation is people may actually pray for those in authority, but do they actually make intercessions for them?

The word 'intercessions' is from #1793 in Strongs-

'to chance upon, i.e. (by impl.) to confer with; by extens. to entreat (in favor or against) deal with, make intercession.

See how the personal contact is needed along with the prayers?

But do we contact them or do we blog about them? Do we realize that the taxes are not the real issue, rather it is just a symtom and that the tax would be appropriate and just if only they would deal with the evil and the good that God requires of them?

How many more people would be willing to pay the taxes if they could just get the rulers to cease doing evil things? The God of heaven would actually condemn mens conscience for not paying the tribute and respect to the rulers- if it really was due them.

Do most people feel obligated to pay for the bankers gambling debts? Does anyone feel obligated to pay for the bills someone else has charged onto your credit card? Is that not evil in anyones book?

Herod was a ruler. Caesar was a ruler. How many rulers have definitely been terrors to good works? How many people are hypnotized into claiming evil is good?

I agree with you and this is the grave mis-perception that needs to be corrected.

Why intercede for those in authority if in the 'real' plan of God - all the evil things that rulers do will actually be for your good, and is actually God's will for them to do that evil?

I am going to go back to your original argument about Rom. 13.

So, I put it to every Pauline. If the members of the Sanhedrin and Pontius Pilate were
the minister[s] of God, … revenger[s] to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil,
why did they murder Jesus?

The phrase 'I put it to every Pauline' implies that people who have received Paul as being sent by God are somehow in a different grouping than people who believe only in the other apostles who were likewise called and sent of God.

The same Jesus that sent out the 12 and the 70 also sent out Paul.

The similar thing happened with the Pharisees- after they reviled one of Jesus' disciples they said '...you are his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this man, we know not from whence he is.' (John 9:28-29)

Jesus rebuked them on their own grounds and said 'Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings how shall ye believe my words?'
(John 45-47)

Look at this and see the similarities between your argument and the Pharisees.

They claimed they believed Moses, but they really didn't or else they would have believed Jesus who was sent by God and who Moses wrote about.

You claim to believe Jesus 100% of the time, yet you don't receive Paul in the same way you receive Jesus or the other apostles.

John, another one of Christ's apostles said this-

"...He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

You receive Jesus, Matthew, Mark, and Luke and John- all of whom were sent by God, but you put Paul in a different category and say those who believe him are "Paulines."

Why don't I call you a 'Markene' or a 'Johnene' or a 'Matthite?' Because there are no such subgroups according to the Jesus you believe 100% of the time.

He said universally 'he that receiveth WHOMSOEVER I SEND receiveth me.'

See how serious this is according to Jesus Christ. He is saying in essence that if we receive him that he sends- then we are receiving Him.

The opposite would also then be true, that if you don't receive him that he sends (Paul) then you are not receiving this Jesus, even though you say you believe him 100% of the time.

If you are going to quote Jesus as your source of authority then you MUST include this in your portfolio my friend.

If he indeed did send Paul, then what did he send him to do?

Look at what the Jesus that you agree with said about what he would do:

"But rise, and stand upon they feet; for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." (Acts 26:16)

Remember what the apostle John said that Jesus said; 'He that receiveth him that I send receiveth me...'

Here we have what the apostle Paul said that Jesus told him; 'You will be a witness and a minister...' in what? In 'the things in which you have (already) seen and heard..' AND...

'...of those things in the which I will appear unto thee.' (later)

So we have Jesus plainly saying that there would be things that he would show Paul later. So is it any surprise that Paul comes and says 'I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord...?'

Is he tooting his own horn, or is just fulfilling what the same Jesus that you agree with had already told him on the road to Damascus?

The problem here is that if you don't receive Paul as being sent by God in the same way you receive the other apostles it is easy to say he was stressed out and that Satan got a hold of him and he was fallible and misled.

This type of thinking is leading you into being editor in chief of God's Word.

You hit Rom. 13 with a sledge hammer, and it is inevitable that the cracks are traveling throughout all his writings.

First he missed it on Rom. 13, then he misses it on the the proper role of women in the church, then he misses it on having the head covered, then you have made a rule that a person can not quote Paul if it is being used in any to vindicate the apostleship that Jesus himself gave to him.

You claim his writings are not scripture, or God's law or God's Word.

Their excuses always come back to the original distortion of Paul that they deemed and still wrongly deem to be Holy Scripture, which they were never. Paul's letters are not God's word or his law.

I have looked through all the times the word 'scripture' was used in the Bible and I have never seen Jesus' words directly called 'scripture.'

If your making the claim that Jesus words are called scripture then please show me where that verse is.

I have also looked at how the word 'law' was used in the gospels and have not found Jesus using that word directly referring to the words he spoke.

If you are making the claim that Jesus word is called 'the law' then please show me where that verse is.

The real link that leads us into the full implication of what God is saying is actually the word 'God's Word.'

From this vantage point, its easy see that the term, 'God's Word' is called both 'scripture' and 'God's law' as it is used extensively in the writings of both the law and the prophets and also of the apostles.

What is the actual meaning of the term 'scripture?'

#1124 Strongs-

A Document, i.e. holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it)

Seeing the word 'scripture' is not used directly in the gospels to refer to any of the words of Jesus- how say ye that gospels are scripture and Paul's epistles are not?

The words of some apostles such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are somehow 'holy writ' and yet the words of the apostle Paul are not?

The writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are 'documents' but the writings of Paul are not 'documents?'

The marginalization of Paul however, is not the complete problem, but rather just a symptom.

The beginning point of your argument starts with the assumption that Paul is saying all rulers are of God, all rulers are God's ministers, and all rulers are to be respected. You can't agree with that so you dismiss him as being in error.

Because of this assumption you blame Paul that he has been decieved by Satan and if he had only stood with Jesus much of the death and destruction would never have happened.

Another huge part of this problem is that you have dug your heels so deep into this concept that it would be very humbling for you to ever admit to being wrong.

Here is your first response to my first post:

So, Paul is saying not to follow the orders of evil rulers. Don't be subject to them, etc. Refuse their orders. Don't pay taxes to them (tribute of a sort – rendering to Caesar). You're trying to bring him into line with Jesus, but he still doesn't fit even with this backward attempt.

Paul is not specifically saying NOT to pay taxes, he is just saying taxes are truly due only if the ruler is doing that which is right.

Jesus agreed with this premise when he asked Peter of whom do the kings of the earth take tribute of their own or of strangers?

Jesus openly stated that the children were free which in turn tells us point blank that Jesus knew that the rulers were charging the tax unlawfully.

When the people come asking whether it is lawful to pay tribute or not- Jesus doesn't openly say Ceasar is a crook- even though he was- he is again careful not to offend because he knows the tax is just the symptom of the disease- not the cause.

In other words, the problem is not going to be solved by not paying taxes, its just going to be a stumblingblock to them. Lets look a little deeper at the word 'offend' in Theyers Concordance:

#2642- 'To cause one to judge unfavorably, OR UNJUSTLY of another.

We want to be wise as serpents, harmless as doves, right? So we don't want to place a stumblingblock in front of them and give them a reason to unjustly blame us- remember they are sinners and we need to become all things to all men so we might win some.

The real issue that needs to be solved is to get rulers to come into line with Romans 13 so we can actually live the peaceable life in all godliness and honesty as Paul said in I Tim. 2:1-3.

The thing that is missing from this equation is people may actually pray for those in authority, but do they actually make intercessions for them?

The word 'intercessions' is from #1793 in Strongs-

'to chance upon, i.e. (by impl.) to confer with; by extens. to entreat (in favor or against) deal with, make intercession.

See how the personal contact is needed along with the prayers?

But do we contact them or do we blog about them? Do we realize that the taxes are not the real issue, rather it is just a symtom and that the tax would be appropriate and just if only they would deal with the evil and the good that God requires of them?

How many more people would be willing to pay the taxes if they could just get the rulers to cease doing evil things? The God of heaven would actually condemn mens conscience for not paying the tribute and respect to the rulers- if it really was due them.

Do most people feel obligated to pay for the bankers gambling debts? Does anyone feel obligated to pay for the bills someone else has charged onto your credit card? Is that not evil in anyones book?

Herod was a ruler. Caesar was a ruler. How many rulers have definitely been terrors to good works? How many people are hypnotized into claiming evil is good?

I agree with you and this is the grave mis-perception that needs to be corrected.

Why intercede for those in authority if in the 'real' plan of God - all the evil things that rulers do will actually be for your good, and is actually God's will for them to do that evil?

Jesus was subject to the higher power. He was subject to Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate doesn't fit with your Pauline interpretation.

Wrath: Jesus said do not be wrathful. No ruler ordained of God after the New Testament may execute wrath.

I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding that Satan is still falling from Heaven. The kingdom is within. When Jesus taught and people grasped it, Satan fell. The Empire/Beast is falling and will fall all the way.

You did not admit that the God of Moses was not the same understanding of Jesus's God.

As for Titus versus Ephesians 6:12..., you make my point. Here's the deal. Paul isn't saying commit murder on the orders of Obama, but at the same time he is saying it to the people who can't get Jesus. That's the problem. So, why didn't Paul simply teach the people what Jesus said rather than writing his own stuff? He doesn't know. Look, when they haul us before them as they hauled Jesus before them, we don't draw our swords any more than did Jesus. We allow them to be in error against pure righteousness. When they say, pay your taxes. Well, to pay them if we are on the Christian Commons will require that someone still earning within that outside system to be the fish with the coins in its mouth; but we will pay. When we are asked to "be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing," we say this is error.

No human being is God's angel of death. The angel of death is the enemy. Yes, ultimately he isn't allowed to hold the righteous. He is though still the enemy. He is the serpent. He is the Antichrist with a capital A. He is the king who drags them before him and cuts them to pieces and deceives the people who are supposed to exercise mercy and forgiveness at all times. He is not Jesus. Jesus warns against becoming that king. Jesus was offered to become that king and rejected it. Have you not been offered? Dwell on that some before moving on. Do you get it? If you don't, don't just gloss over it.

I see from some of your commenting that you appear to undervalue or even be unaware of the fact that Jesus never rises above his lowliest servant. Cyrus did do what you said he did, but his empire was not of the God of Jesus. His empire was still the Beast. At the time though, in relative terms, he appeared vastly more softhearted, and he was. Nehemiah though returned and said some right things when he consulted his conscience, but he was not Jesus proper. He was headed in that direction though relative to many who went before and pretty much most of those who have come after him. Certainly, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are not on Nehemiah's level even after millennia to learn.

In questions such as concerns Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart, you are dealing with tautological paradoxes. God determines all things but we have free will. It is a true paradox, meaning that God does determine all things and that we also do have free will. The problem is with Aristotelianism. People want Newton and not quantum mechanics. I don't hold with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I accept the wave-particle duality. It isn't irrational to me at all. When Jesus says all things are possible with God, he doesn't mean some things. He literally means all things. "The wisdom of God passeth all understanding" for a while.

Actually, the darkness is both literal and figurative. This is something I'm not at liberty to discuss in full detail, as it would benefit the enemy.

No, "the war in heaven between Michael and the Dragon occured sometime before the serpent appeared in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve" didn't occur as in a final battle in Heaven. Satan was in enthroned in Heaven until Jesus. Read Enoch. Satan is still enthroned in Heaven in the minds of many. The Luciferians have him there still. By Lucifer, I don't mean the real bringer of light who is Jesus.

As for John's Revelation, just as with Jesus's ages, they are both past and present and future until the end. We are not at the end, far from it.

As for Moses, the offences will come. They will come by human beings possessed. This is how evil is pruned. God does let Satan operate. Those sealed by God will not be held by death. Who are they? They are not those who didn't repent of their own wrath. Why is that? Heaven cannot be Heaven with such spirits within it.

As for Peter, I have addressed that in my comment above.

About scripture, did Jesus get the New Testament wholesale from the Old? Jesus valued the Holy Spirit speaking directly to his followers. We have the Old Testament. We have the New Testament as recorded. Nowhere does it say that the testament of the Holy Spirit is finished coming. Jesus specifically said that greater things will be done. How do we reach that by remaining at Paul's level or Peter's or any of the Gospel writers?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit speak to you telling you things not already written by the Gospel writers? Even John wrote that if everything about what Jesus did were to have been written down there wouldn't be room for the book. He didn't mean it literally of course. It was a figure of speech to inform us that the Gospels are not an exhaustive accounting. That's not a problem though because the New Commandment is a summation and the recorded words and deeds are enough for the purpose of dividing out the goats from amongst the sheep. It does though clearly suggest that it is folly to assume that more won't unfold.

People are yet to prophesy and to dream dreams. Things are yet to come that have never been seen before. Jesus knew that before he left.

Peace, love, and truth are one.

Tom

Jesus was subject to the higher power. He was subject to Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate doesn't fit with your Pauline interpretation.

Wrath: Jesus said do not be wrathful. No ruler ordained of God after the New Testament may execute wrath.

I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding that Satan is still falling from Heaven. The kingdom is within. When Jesus taught and people grasped it, Satan fell. The Empire/Beast is falling and will fall all the way.

You did not admit that the God of Moses was not the same understanding of Jesus's God.

As for Titus versus Ephesians 6:12..., you make my point. Here's the deal. Paul isn't saying commit murder on the orders of Obama, but at the same time he is saying it to the people who can't get Jesus. That's the problem. So, why didn't Paul simply teach the people what Jesus said rather than writing his own stuff? He doesn't know. Look, when they haul us before them as they hauled Jesus before them, we don't draw our swords any more than did Jesus. We allow them to be in error against pure righteousness. When they say, pay your taxes. Well, to pay them if we are on the Christian Commons will require that someone still earning within that outside system to be the fish with the coins in its mouth; but we will pay. When we are asked to "be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing," we say this is error.

No human being is God's angel of death. The angel of death is the enemy. Yes, ultimately he isn't allowed to hold the righteous. He is though still the enemy. He is the serpent. He is the Antichrist with a capital A. He is the king who drags them before him and cuts them to pieces and deceives the people who are supposed to exercise mercy and forgiveness at all times. He is not Jesus. Jesus warns against becoming that king. Jesus was offered to become that king and rejected it. Have you not been offered? Dwell on that some before moving on. Do you get it? If you don't, don't just gloss over it.

I see from some of your commenting that you appear to undervalue or even be unaware of the fact that Jesus never rises above his lowliest servant. Cyrus did do what you said he did, but his empire was not of the God of Jesus. His empire was still the Beast. At the time though, in relative terms, he appeared vastly more softhearted, and he was. Nehemiah though returned and said some right things when he consulted his conscience, but he was not Jesus proper. He was headed in that direction though relative to many who went before and pretty much most of those who have come after him. Certainly, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are not on Nehemiah's level even after millennia to learn.

In questions such as concerns Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart, you are dealing with tautological paradoxes. God determines all things but we have free will. It is a true paradox, meaning that God does determine all things and that we also do have free will. The problem is with Aristotelianism. People want Newton and not quantum mechanics. I don't hold with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I accept the wave-particle duality. It isn't irrational to me at all. When Jesus says all things are possible with God, he doesn't mean some things. He literally means all things. "The wisdom of God passeth all understanding" for a while.

Actually, the darkness is both literal and figurative. This is something I'm not at liberty to discuss in full detail, as it would benefit the enemy.

No, "the war in heaven between Michael and the Dragon occured sometime before the serpent appeared in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve" didn't occur as in a final battle in Heaven. Satan was in enthroned in Heaven until Jesus. Read Enoch. Satan is still enthroned in Heaven in the minds of many. The Luciferians have him there still. By Lucifer, I don't mean the real bringer of light who is Jesus.

As for John's Revelation, just as with Jesus's ages, they are both past and present and future until the end. We are not at the end, far from it.

As for Moses, the offences will come. They will come by human beings possessed. This is how evil is pruned. God does let Satan operate. Those sealed by God will not be held by death. Who are they? They are not those who didn't repent of their own wrath. Why is that? Heaven cannot be Heaven with such spirits within it.

As for Peter, I have addressed that in my comment above.

About scripture, did Jesus get the New Testament wholesale from the Old? Jesus valued the Holy Spirit speaking directly to his followers. We have the Old Testament. We have the New Testament as recorded. Nowhere does it say that the testament of the Holy Spirit is finished coming. Jesus specifically said that greater things will be done. How do we reach that by remaining at Paul's level or Peter's or any of the Gospel writers?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit speak to you telling you things not already written by the Gospel writers? Even John wrote that if everything about what Jesus did were to have been written down there wouldn't be room for the book. He didn't mean it literally of course. It was a figure of speech to inform us that the Gospels are not an exhaustive accounting. That's not a problem though because the New Commandment is a summation and the recorded words and deeds are enough for the purpose of dividing out the goats from amongst the sheep. It does though clearly suggest that it is folly to assume that more won't unfold.

People are yet to prophesy and to dream dreams. Things are yet to come that have never been seen before. Jesus knew that before he left.

Peace, love, and truth are one.

Tom

It appears that point-by-point is not completely your style. I prefer it, but put it aside often since it throws so many people. I do come back to it though when I detect a major, witting obfuscator, which isn't difficult to detect.

Okay, among others, people appear to approach scripture in two different ways. One is taking it on traditional authority. The other is starting more so from scratch. So, we have committees established by traditional authority itself which committees poured over writings and arrived at decisions as to what to allow into the canon (to take as the law from God). On the other hand, we have people such as Jesus who, with a critical eye, spotted and pronounced as hypocrisy that naturally just can't jibe with the finished state of perfection which is and who is God. Therefore, God's law must be perfect. Imperfections denote something other than God at work, with the exception that God must bring us along, meaning that if we are in a hardened position, the final state won't be able to be seen, so imperfect states must be employed to graduate (albeit not necessarily un-dramatically) to greater and greater perfection. Of course, that employment can rightly be viewed itself as the perfect approach to gaining the hardhearted for God the softhearted — no false paradox there. It is true and therefore reconcilable without resorting to irrationality. In other words, it's not hypocritical. It wasn't hypocritical of Jesus to come here to this lower, hardened state. It was perfect.

Now, where does Paul fit in with this? Well, we have it on that authority mentioned above that he was everything he said he was. So, they appeal to him as the authority. We have Luke's account. Luke was himself necessarily Pauline therefore to no small degree. We have Peter, who obviously struggled mightily with his own issues of backsliding — a pattern that we don't know was ever finally ended while he was in the flesh. So, let's employ Jesus's method of critical analysis.

The following is taking the Pauline Epistles as one. I don't say that the textual or higher critics don't have their points here. I am though approaching the Pauline letters as one because I'm concerned first with the major errors in behavior stemming from taking those letters as infallibly authoritative.

We have Paul going after the law where the connotation is primarily if not entirely ceremonial. At the same time, we have Paul introducing ceremonial law that he justifies on mundane grounds. In fact, there are places where he clearly states that he is speaking for himself and not from the Holy Spirit on such matters. He speaks of women being silent in Church. I've read the apologetics. No need to raise them with me. They are speculation only. He wrote what he wrote. He said women are to be silent in Church, period. He didn't qualify it. I know that's discounting "interpreting" based upon other of his writings, but bear with me here so I may get to the greater point. (I do interpret things based upon the whole). Part of Pauline apologetics includes taking the reader to other Pauline writings to say that Paul couldn't have meant it as a blanket law. In other words, we are to give the Pauline material the benefit of the doubt and expect everyone to do the same. However, that was not Jesus's approach to scripture or to the rationalizations of the Pharisees and others. Jesus simply pointed out hypocrisy, which many Pharisees actually recognized and didn't attempt to further rationalize but rather went silent, that is until Jesus gained too many followers for the Pharisees liking. Fearing being removed from their positions of authority, they conspired and did have him murdered.

In addition to remaining silent in the congregation, Paul also introduced head coverings and long hair for women and bare heads and short hair for men. These are arbitrary concepts from Paul's head and not from God. Can we take them as perfect devices to bring us along? Where does Paul have us drop them for what is better and best? Rather than that, Paul tells us to stop asking questions. However, Jesus says to ask.

I could go into a great deal of detail here, quoting and citing books, chapters, and verses, but why do it?

Now, if we come back to Roman's 13 in light of the above indication of hypocrisy, why would we there in Roman's 13 give the Pauline literature the benefit of the doubt? Why not take it as we take his commandment that women are to have their heads covered and that men are to have theirs uncovered when praying?

Do you hear Jesus saying to go into your closet to pray and take off your hat? For Jesus, one's closet can be the great outdoors. Jesus certainly prayed in the desert alone. Would Jesus say to the person standing at the South Pole during the Antarctica winter to take off his head covering before praying for rescue? Sure, with sufficient faith, that person could be transported to safety or be in a protective bubble there in an instant. Every budding Christian's mind isn't instantly at that level though. "Closet" is figurative with Jesus. Head coverings with Paul are not.

No, what Paul wrote has led many to misbelieve that they are to follow the orders of the secular "authorities" even when those orders are in direct contradiction of the New Commandment. This is my concern. No amount of apologetics for Paul repairs the misleading because there are too many other such contradictions, all of which are absent with Jesus taken without Paul.

Giving Caesar back his coined mammon is not the same thing as selling one's soul by joining the Pentagon and not repenting and quitting. Once that door is opened, there is no end to following wicked orders. Hence we have self-professing Christians sitting in air-conditioned rooms in cushy chairs in front of computer screens directing predator drones firing missiles that are murdering babies. Those murderers then go home to their families as if they have served their country to protect freedom and those families. They will also go to church services on Sundays and worship the God of their minds that tells them that murdering those babies was all right. From there, what evil cannot be rationalized away?

Look, I read writings of atheists that up to a point I can agree with completely. What matters is where I part company with them, not where I can find agreement. I can find plenty in the Pauline letters I don't cross out. Paul, as with everyone, even Satan proper, speaks truths. It's when they are half- or partial-truths that matters and subjects them to being moved behind one or another. This is why Jesus told Satan to get behind him. Well, I'm passed Paul. That's how it is.

The whole foundation of truth doesn't crumble on account of this, quite the contrary.

Are you aware that Antonin Scalia, the Roman Catholic associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, justifies the death penalty based upon Romans 13? He does that to the complete exclusion of Jesus's admonition never to kill. There will be those who will rush in saying, but what about the parable of the king who has them brought before him and cut to pieces. Is that king, king Jesus?

Jesus speaks using the most highly refined semantical understanding I've ever seen or heard. His parables are a lesson in not jumping to false conclusions and in requiring being able to see the figurative allusions that escape the hardhearted. Jesus's God is not the God to whom one calls for wrath to be executed upon the wicked. Satan commits suicide. He jumps into the Lake of Fire.

I know this type of thinking is difficult for most if not all right now. The most literal have the most difficulty. The highly figurative are not guaranteed either. Plenty of poets are atheists. Consider though that Paul said the church would be transported into the sky forever while other prophecies say the kingdom will arrive on Earth. There is a place where both are true, but this is not taught in the churches today nor has it been since Jesus walked the Earth nearly two thousand years ago. It is now though with me.

I don't know your background. I don't know what denomination you claim if any. Consider though that once the conclusions from Romans 13 are shown not to jibe with the New Commandment informed by all of Jesus's statements and deeds, then we can take the Church back to Jesus where war is not allowed and neither are greed or depravity and not based upon arbitrariness but pure consistency that can withstand any level of scrutiny.

Here, the final appeal against this Real Liberal Christian Church is that anyone can justify anything using scripture. That doesn't work though against me. I don't cherry pick Jesus. I take him in total. His call is to perfection, and there is no hypocrisy in perfection.

So, my challengers are left with having to point out even the slightest hypocrisy in Jesus in a way that their charges stand up against any refutation. I have yet to see that done.

They have pointed to the cleaning of the temple, but the temple is a place of rules where only the voluntary truly reside and no one was harmed by the cleaning. They have pointed to Jesus asking God why God forsook him, but those challengers don't return after Psalms 22 is explained and how Jesus was tying in the whole of prophecy with his statement for our endless edification. They complain about his cursing the fig tree, but they don't understand the implications for those who have stolen the rightful inheritance of all others and who do not bring forth. The fig tree was Jesus's and refused to acknowledge. Jesus showed the results of such hypocrisy on the part of the tree. The tree cursed itself. It was its own worst enemy. Had Jesus been wicked and hardhearted and not the proper son of God, that would have been another matter. They say Jesus did not honor his mother when he rebuked her, but they don't understand that Jesus knew the times and places for things and was informed of the Holy Spirit more so than was she, bless her soul nevertheless.

There are those who avoid all of this by appealing to not asking the tough questions. They falsely imagine that if they don't search their souls, they will be left with the excuse of ignorance. That though shows their awareness of righteousness being deliberately avoided and is no excuse. There are those who insist that we aren't to lead Holy lives as to say that it can't be done until God miraculously causes the transfiguration, transformation, regeneration, or whatever name one applies to it. However, working up to leading a Holy life is such regenerating. Nowhere does Jesus say to wait before being better. He does say to wait, but that's in a different context to mean be patient, don't give up and not to suggest not to be pruned of whatever wickedness remains within that is outwardly manifest in evil deeds.

Well, I won't go on here right now. This much is sufficient.

Capitalism and worldly militarism are not justified. Many other things are also not justified, but many have attempted to twist Christianity into finding capitalism and militarism as being justified. It has led to many lost souls who would otherwise have never professed Jesus or would have been truly found as opposed to tricked into the synagogue of Satan, as it were.

What has happened is that the pacifism of Jesus has been covered over by the glorification of the militarists. Eusebius of Caesarea and his "The Life of Constantine," is an abomination for instance. So, even to this day, we have so-called conservative Republican Christians who are rabid militarists. The U.S. military is loaded with self-styled born-again Christians. This is the worst thing on Earth. It represents the greatest apostasy there is. I mean in degree. It is taking Christianity and twisting it such that more people are deluded into imagining that they are Christians when they are actually doing the most sinister work of the devil that is worldly imperialism — the greatest theft, which includes the theft of souls forever unless they repent soon enough. They are the branches and leaves of yet another fig tree that too will wither and died. Am I cursing them? No, I'm warning them. I'm not threatening them.

Oh, but if we don't fight them, they'll come here and kill us. That's one of the arguments of the Zealots to whom Jesus said put up your swords and Isaiah said to beat those swords into plowshares, with which Jesus agrees, of course. Look what happened to those Zealots. It's why Maccabees is not canonical, frankly. The law was already known. It's worth reading but for discernment.

Lastly, we have the homosexuals claiming harmlessness. It's preposterous. I left a comment over on the Associated Baptist Press site as follows:

Hello Miguel De La Torre,

This is exponential confusion. First of all, this is supposed to be a Christian site, yet it is advocating for militarism. Nowhere does Jesus advocate for militarism. He addresses the militarists and calls them to renounce violence. Second, "obedience to their country's call" here includes going into a clearly illegal war, even mundanely illegal. Where does it say that one blindly is to march off to war? Are you at all familiar with the case of Lieutenant Erin Watada? He refused to deploy in an war illegal under U.S. and International Law. Of course, deploying in any war is against Jesus's commandment. A real military hero is one who quits under good conscience directed of the Holy Spirit. Now here comes this site putting forth that under the mundane law, the religious are not to use their religious views in coming to secular decisions. That's also specious. If the voters vote-in a theocracy without violating any of the current laws, that would be that. I'm not for it, but it would still be legal under the U.S. Constitution if they could muster sufficient votes. Now you want homosexuality in with the already immoral and ungodly military. As I said, it is exponential confusion. Sure, don't coerce the homosexuals. However, the position on this site is that there's nothing inherently un-Christian about homosexuality. Well, there are many sins Jesus didn't name verbatim that you are still holding out as sin. If you can show me that homosexuality is being as harmless as a dove, I'll relent. So long as homosexuality, per se, remains inherently harmful in all cases, a belief I hold, I will maintain that no Christian has any business suggesting that homosexuality is acceptable.

Peace

Again, Peace

It appears that point-by-point is not completely your style. I prefer it, but put it aside often since it throws so many people. I do come back to it though when I detect a major, witting obfuscator, which isn't difficult to detect.

Okay, among others, people appear to approach scripture in two different ways. One is taking it on traditional authority. The other is starting more so from scratch. So, we have committees established by traditional authority itself which committees poured over writings and arrived at decisions as to what to allow into the canon (to take as the law from God). On the other hand, we have people such as Jesus who, with a critical eye, spotted and pronounced as hypocrisy that naturally just can't jibe with the finished state of perfection which is and who is God. Therefore, God's law must be perfect. Imperfections denote something other than God at work, with the exception that God must bring us along, meaning that if we are in a hardened position, the final state won't be able to be seen, so imperfect states must be employed to graduate (albeit not necessarily un-dramatically) to greater and greater perfection. Of course, that employment can rightly be viewed itself as the perfect approach to gaining the hardhearted for God the softhearted — no false paradox there. It is true and therefore reconcilable without resorting to irrationality. In other words, it's not hypocritical. It wasn't hypocritical of Jesus to come here to this lower, hardened state. It was perfect.

Now, where does Paul fit in with this? Well, we have it on that authority mentioned above that he was everything he said he was. So, they appeal to him as the authority. We have Luke's account. Luke was himself necessarily Pauline therefore to no small degree. We have Peter, who obviously struggled mightily with his own issues of backsliding — a pattern that we don't know was ever finally ended while he was in the flesh. So, let's employ Jesus's method of critical analysis.

The following is taking the Pauline Epistles as one. I don't say that the textual or higher critics don't have their points here. I am though approaching the Pauline letters as one because I'm concerned first with the major errors in behavior stemming from taking those letters as infallibly authoritative.

We have Paul going after the law where the connotation is primarily if not entirely ceremonial. At the same time, we have Paul introducing ceremonial law that he justifies on mundane grounds. In fact, there are places where he clearly states that he is speaking for himself and not from the Holy Spirit on such matters. He speaks of women being silent in Church. I've read the apologetics. No need to raise them with me. They are speculation only. He wrote what he wrote. He said women are to be silent in Church, period. He didn't qualify it. I know that's discounting "interpreting" based upon other of his writings, but bear with me here so I may get to the greater point. (I do interpret things based upon the whole). Part of Pauline apologetics includes taking the reader to other Pauline writings to say that Paul couldn't have meant it as a blanket law. In other words, we are to give the Pauline material the benefit of the doubt and expect everyone to do the same. However, that was not Jesus's approach to scripture or to the rationalizations of the Pharisees and others. Jesus simply pointed out hypocrisy, which many Pharisees actually recognized and didn't attempt to further rationalize but rather went silent, that is until Jesus gained too many followers for the Pharisees liking. Fearing being removed from their positions of authority, they conspired and did have him murdered.

In addition to remaining silent in the congregation, Paul also introduced head coverings and long hair for women and bare heads and short hair for men. These are arbitrary concepts from Paul's head and not from God. Can we take them as perfect devices to bring us along? Where does Paul have us drop them for what is better and best? Rather than that, Paul tells us to stop asking questions. However, Jesus says to ask.

I could go into a great deal of detail here, quoting and citing books, chapters, and verses, but why do it?

Now, if we come back to Roman's 13 in light of the above indication of hypocrisy, why would we there in Roman's 13 give the Pauline literature the benefit of the doubt? Why not take it as we take his commandment that women are to have their heads covered and that men are to have theirs uncovered when praying?

Do you hear Jesus saying to go into your closet to pray and take off your hat? For Jesus, one's closet can be the great outdoors. Jesus certainly prayed in the desert alone. Would Jesus say to the person standing at the South Pole during the Antarctica winter to take off his head covering before praying for rescue? Sure, with sufficient faith, that person could be transported to safety or be in a protective bubble there in an instant. Every budding Christian's mind isn't instantly at that level though. "Closet" is figurative with Jesus. Head coverings with Paul are not.

No, what Paul wrote has led many to misbelieve that they are to follow the orders of the secular "authorities" even when those orders are in direct contradiction of the New Commandment. This is my concern. No amount of apologetics for Paul repairs the misleading because there are too many other such contradictions, all of which are absent with Jesus taken without Paul.

Giving Caesar back his coined mammon is not the same thing as selling one's soul by joining the Pentagon and not repenting and quitting. Once that door is opened, there is no end to following wicked orders. Hence we have self-professing Christians sitting in air-conditioned rooms in cushy chairs in front of computer screens directing predator drones firing missiles that are murdering babies. Those murderers then go home to their families as if they have served their country to protect freedom and those families. They will also go to church services on Sundays and worship the God of their minds that tells them that murdering those babies was all right. From there, what evil cannot be rationalized away?

Look, I read writings of atheists that up to a point I can agree with completely. What matters is where I part company with them, not where I can find agreement. I can find plenty in the Pauline letters I don't cross out. Paul, as with everyone, even Satan proper, speaks truths. It's when they are half- or partial-truths that matters and subjects them to being moved behind one or another. This is why Jesus told Satan to get behind him. Well, I'm passed Paul. That's how it is.

The whole foundation of truth doesn't crumble on account of this, quite the contrary.

Are you aware that Antonin Scalia, the Roman Catholic associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, justifies the death penalty based upon Romans 13? He does that to the complete exclusion of Jesus's admonition never to kill. There will be those who will rush in saying, but what about the parable of the king who has them brought before him and cut to pieces. Is that king, king Jesus?

Jesus speaks using the most highly refined semantical understanding I've ever seen or heard. His parables are a lesson in not jumping to false conclusions and in requiring being able to see the figurative allusions that escape the hardhearted. Jesus's God is not the God to whom one calls for wrath to be executed upon the wicked. Satan commits suicide. He jumps into the Lake of Fire.

I know this type of thinking is difficult for most if not all right now. The most literal have the most difficulty. The highly figurative are not guaranteed either. Plenty of poets are atheists. Consider though that Paul said the church would be transported into the sky forever while other prophecies say the kingdom will arrive on Earth. There is a place where both are true, but this is not taught in the churches today nor has it been since Jesus walked the Earth nearly two thousand years ago. It is now though with me.

I don't know your background. I don't know what denomination you claim if any. Consider though that once the conclusions from Romans 13 are shown not to jibe with the New Commandment informed by all of Jesus's statements and deeds, then we can take the Church back to Jesus where war is not allowed and neither are greed or depravity and not based upon arbitrariness but pure consistency that can withstand any level of scrutiny.

Here, the final appeal against this Real Liberal Christian Church is that anyone can justify anything using scripture. That doesn't work though against me. I don't cherry pick Jesus. I take him in total. His call is to perfection, and there is no hypocrisy in perfection.

So, my challengers are left with having to point out even the slightest hypocrisy in Jesus in a way that their charges stand up against any refutation. I have yet to see that done.

They have pointed to the cleaning of the temple, but the temple is a place of rules where only the voluntary truly reside and no one was harmed by the cleaning. They have pointed to Jesus asking God why God forsook him, but those challengers don't return after Psalms 22 is explained and how Jesus was tying in the whole of prophecy with his statement for our endless edification. They complain about his cursing the fig tree, but they don't understand the implications for those who have stolen the rightful inheritance of all others and who do not bring forth. The fig tree was Jesus's and refused to acknowledge. Jesus showed the results of such hypocrisy on the part of the tree. The tree cursed itself. It was its own worst enemy. Had Jesus been wicked and hardhearted and not the proper son of God, that would have been another matter. They say Jesus did not honor his mother when he rebuked her, but they don't understand that Jesus knew the times and places for things and was informed of the Holy Spirit more so than was she, bless her soul nevertheless.

There are those who avoid all of this by appealing to not asking the tough questions. They falsely imagine that if they don't search their souls, they will be left with the excuse of ignorance. That though shows their awareness of righteousness being deliberately avoided and is no excuse. There are those who insist that we aren't to lead Holy lives as to say that it can't be done until God miraculously causes the transfiguration, transformation, regeneration, or whatever name one applies to it. However, working up to leading a Holy life is such regenerating. Nowhere does Jesus say to wait before being better. He does say to wait, but that's in a different context to mean be patient, don't give up and not to suggest not to be pruned of whatever wickedness remains within that is outwardly manifest in evil deeds.

Well, I won't go on here right now. This much is sufficient.

Capitalism and worldly militarism are not justified. Many other things are also not justified, but many have attempted to twist Christianity into finding capitalism and militarism as being justified. It has led to many lost souls who would otherwise have never professed Jesus or would have been truly found as opposed to tricked into the synagogue of Satan, as it were.

What has happened is that the pacifism of Jesus has been covered over by the glorification of the militarists. Eusebius of Caesarea and his "The Life of Constantine," is an abomination for instance. So, even to this day, we have so-called conservative Republican Christians who are rabid militarists. The U.S. military is loaded with self-styled born-again Christians. This is the worst thing on Earth. It represents the greatest apostasy there is. I mean in degree. It is taking Christianity and twisting it such that more people are deluded into imagining that they are Christians when they are actually doing the most sinister work of the devil that is worldly imperialism — the greatest theft, which includes the theft of souls forever unless they repent soon enough. They are the branches and leaves of yet another fig tree that too will wither and died. Am I cursing them? No, I'm warning them. I'm not threatening them.

Oh, but if we don't fight them, they'll come here and kill us. That's one of the arguments of the Zealots to whom Jesus said put up your swords and Isaiah said to beat those swords into plowshares, with which Jesus agrees, of course. Look what happened to those Zealots. It's why Maccabees is not canonical, frankly. The law was already known. It's worth reading but for discernment.

Lastly, we have the homosexuals claiming harmlessness. It's preposterous. I left a comment over on the Associated Baptist Press site as follows:

Hello Miguel De La Torre,

This is exponential confusion. First of all, this is supposed to be a Christian site, yet it is advocating for militarism. Nowhere does Jesus advocate for militarism. He addresses the militarists and calls them to renounce violence. Second, "obedience to their country's call" here includes going into a clearly illegal war, even mundanely illegal. Where does it say that one blindly is to march off to war? Are you at all familiar with the case of Lieutenant Erin Watada? He refused to deploy in an war illegal under U.S. and International Law. Of course, deploying in any war is against Jesus's commandment. A real military hero is one who quits under good conscience directed of the Holy Spirit. Now here comes this site putting forth that under the mundane law, the religious are not to use their religious views in coming to secular decisions. That's also specious. If the voters vote-in a theocracy without violating any of the current laws, that would be that. I'm not for it, but it would still be legal under the U.S. Constitution if they could muster sufficient votes. Now you want homosexuality in with the already immoral and ungodly military. As I said, it is exponential confusion. Sure, don't coerce the homosexuals. However, the position on this site is that there's nothing inherently un-Christian about homosexuality. Well, there are many sins Jesus didn't name verbatim that you are still holding out as sin. If you can show me that homosexuality is being as harmless as a dove, I'll relent. So long as homosexuality, per se, remains inherently harmful in all cases, a belief I hold, I will maintain that no Christian has any business suggesting that homosexuality is acceptable.

Peace

Again, Peace

Concerning "higher powers," I suggest you consider the following in light of your assertions:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ASV)
What are the powers there? Now, you might say that they don't include the "higher" powers because it doesn't say it verbatim — that if he meant higher as opposed to lower or dark or evil, etc., he would have said it. Perhaps that's his mentality. Now though consider Jesus's own view related to you.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18 ASV

How do you read that?

Help me understand what you are getting at.

I am not seeing the connection between Satan falling from heaven and powers that are not able to separate us from the love of God.

Blessings to you

Concerning "higher powers," I suggest you consider the following in light of your assertions:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ASV)
What are the powers there? Now, you might say that they don't include the "higher" powers because it doesn't say it verbatim — that if he meant higher as opposed to lower or dark or evil, etc., he would have said it. Perhaps that's his mentality. Now though consider Jesus's own view related to you.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18 ASV

How do you read that?

Help me understand what you are getting at.

I am not seeing the connection between Satan falling from heaven and powers that are not able to separate us from the love of God.

Blessings to you

No problem though with the length

Just approved it, even though it might sit here a bit unanswered, at least by me

If anyone else wants to address Gary's reply, feel free. Just abide by the comment rules please.

Thank you.

Peace Gary,

Tom

No problem though with the length

Just approved it, even though it might sit here a bit unanswered, at least by me

If anyone else wants to address Gary's reply, feel free. Just abide by the comment rules please.

Thank you.

Peace Gary,

Tom

Concerning "higher powers," I suggest you consider the following in light of your assertions:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ASV)
What are the powers there? Now, you might say that they don't include the "higher" powers because it doesn't say it verbatim — that if he meant higher as opposed to lower or dark or evil, etc., he would have said it. Perhaps that's his mentality. Now though consider Jesus's own view related to you.

In the context of what Paul is saying, I would think that the powers and principalities would be adversarial in nature- but of course the 'adversarial' part would depend on me and on what position I would be in at the time.

For example, in Joshua 5:13, Joshua encounters a man with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua proceeds up to ask him, "Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?"

The answer was "NAY: But as the captain of the host of the Lord am I now come."

I think this just drives home the point, that God is with us when we are with him- and he is not partial to us because of anything of ourselves.

I have considered two scriptures directly upon this line- and they both use the same type of verbage but in two different contexts.

Look at Titus 3:1 - 'Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates...'

See that phrase- principalities and powers?

In Titus it is used in a postitive sense of subjection and obediance.

But look at Eph. 6:12 where it uses the same verbage as follows:

'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but AGAINST principalities, AGAINST powers, AGAINST the rulers of the darkness of this world, AGAINST spiritual wickedness in high places.'

See the contrast in contexts: in one we are to be in subjection to principalities and powers and in the other we are wrestling against them.

The phrase in Eph. gets my attention- '...against the RULERS of the darkness of this world...'

In this contrast Paul says we don't wrestle against flesh and blood, but we do wrestle against the rulers of darkness- so in that light there is a distinction between the physical person and the power that he is being directed or influenced by.

As humans, I believe the flesh and blood rulers are being used by either God or Satan. and one scripture plainly states that the spirit of the devil works in the children of disobediance. (Eph.2:2)

I don't mean to confuse who is the ultimate head of all principality and power, which is of course Jesus Christ because there is the element showing in Job that Satan gets permission from God to do what he does.

The prophet Isaiah prophesies some 200 years before Cyrus appeared that he would be the one annointed by God to do God's pleasure and allow the Jews to return and build up Jerusalem.

Matthew 2:16-18 tells us that the prophesy given by Jeremiah some 600 years prior was fulfilled by Herod when he went out and killed all the children around Bethlehem 2 years old and under.

Two different kings- both fulfilling prophesy, one on the good side and one on the evil side.

We also see the same thing about spirits influencing earthly kings in II Chron. 18:18-22 and in I Kings 22:19-23.

The Lord is there with all the hosts of heaven and he asks- 'Who will persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?'

One answered after this manner and one after that, and then a spirit came forth and said- "I will persuade him."

What did the spirit say? He said 'I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Then the Lord says "Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so"

Just by reading the text you would not have known all this had gone on behind the scene. All it says in II Kings 22:10-12 was that Zedekiah made horns of iron and said, "Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians until thou have consumed them. And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-giliead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king's hand."

Of course that is not just something that happened in the Old Testament for we see some of the same type of element working in Revelation 17:17-

"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

What does this do but repeat what Proverbs had already said, 'The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will."

In reality I don't think this negates the free will of the ruler at all. God hardened Pharoah's heart after he willingly refused to let the children of Israel go even though in his forknoweldge he knew he wouldn't let them go- God still gave him the opportunity.

What I am focusing on is the phrase 'the rulers of the darkness of this world' because it ties in with the next phrase, 'against spiritual wickedness in high places.'

One translation puts it 'against wicked spirits in high places.'

It seems that this is an all encompassing element when he says 'the rulers of the darkness of this world.'

Of course the darkness is not literal but comes from the word skia #4639 (Strongs) which is defined as the darkness of error. or as an 'adumbration' which means 'an imperfect portrayal or representation of a thing.'

I believe it is this imperfect representation that we continually stuggle against as Christians, no matter what area is being misrepresented.

The example was given about a rocket aimed at landing on the moon. It is said to be off course some 90% of the time, but because it keeps getting corrective signals from earth it ultimately lands on the moon.

I don't think it can be avoided that the devil is the prince of the power of the air and as he said to Jesus when he was being tempted in the wilderness, that the devil was given the power to give the kingdoms of this world to whomsoever he will.

I think we cannot pigeon-hole any of the scriptures at the expense of the others. There is this constant tension between good and evil that is going on all the time. Just as sure as someone can do evil, someone can also do good.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18 ASV)

How do you read that?

I actually was just having a lengthy conversation with a brother about that very scripture.

Some of the content of that was the scripture in Job when the Lord asks Satan where he came from.

Satan answered "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

In this verse it shows Satan is in the earth, as it also shows Satan was in the earth in the Garden of Eden.

What it seems to me is that the war in heaven between Michael and the Dragon occured sometime before the serpent appeared in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve.

Rev. 12:7-9 states that the great dragon ...was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him, and that they:

"...prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven."

So it seems from that the devil and his angels has been on the earth from the Garden of Eden until now- what do you make of the statement that Jesus beheld Satan fall from heaven like lightning?

(I am probably not answering your question the way you were directing it- I think there are also implications that Jesus meant Satan was defeated by the power Jesus gave to the disciples- but as far as Jesus trimphing over principalities and powers I believe that he made a show of them openly by his resurrection from the dead- putting himself above any and all power in heaven or in earth.)

Secondly, you use much violence in your analogies. Why is that if you are not in a violent frame of mind, even if subconsciously? I have used such analogies too. I am though explaining that it is not due to my desired mental state but rather due to the world speaking in such terms (using violent analogies even to attempt to make Christian points).

I believe I've seen your analogies elsewhere nearly verbatim if not verbatim. What brought you here, and where else have you made this case you are presenting here?

I am sorry, I am not intentionally trying to use violent settings- I just saw the phrase about the person shooting a robber in his pajamas which was showing how the wording needing further explanation to show what was actually being said- it seemed easy to understand but maybe I should find a different way to explain it.

As for seeing this somewhere before I don't think it was me- because I have just recently gotten involved in Romans 13 out of my own desire to understand it.

After doing some thinking on Romans 13 it seemed more reasonable to think that Paul was defining what true rulers were rather than trying to say that all rulers are good and God's servants whether they are good or bad.

After doing a bit more searching I actually found a preacher (Jonathon Mayhew) during the time of the American Revolution that was preaching this exact thing here-
http://hushmoney.org/Unlimited.....Mayhew.htm.

It appears to me that you hold with the death penalty. I did mention it, but I see that your most recent comment didn't address the issue of Jesus's pacifism and teaching against killing and the death penalty

I believe there must be direct line drawn in the sand between the Old and New Testament.

I look at Jesus as being the chief corner stone between the prophets and apostles.

The building took a turn when Jesus appeared and a person can see this transition taking place from the Old to the New Testament.

For example in one place Jesus tells them to go offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded, and yet in another place Jesus negates the law concerning an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth.

So those who would attempt to impose the death penalty for the things itemized in the law of Moses are only going to find themselves to be hypocrites because neither they themselves or anyone else is keeping all those statutes.

Who will take their rebellious son outside the city and stone him, or who will go about to round up the witches and the homosexuals and kill them?

Seeing we cannot impose the law of Moses upon believers (or even apply it to unbelievers)we must look to the New Testament and rightly divide the word of truth.

I agree with you as Jesus said that they without sin should cast the first stone, and no I don't believe that the account of the woman in adultery was later added to the text and not in the original.

The saying that it is not in the oldest manuscripts shows nothing of its authenticity- old copies can be tampered with in the same way newer ones could be.

The one verse that agrees with Revelation 13 where it says 'he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword agrees with Genesis before the law of Moses saying 'whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed- for in the image of God made he man.'

It puts all the elements of a 'pre-emptive war' out of the picture and shows only a narrow view of what is acceptable before God in the New Testament.

No death for adultery, rebellion, dishonoring of parents or gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

Romans 13 is showing the minister of God to be a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil- not as Bush or Hitler or Obama going in killing the innocents based upon a suspicion of what they might do someday.

A 'revenger' of necessity must act upon the premise of something that has already taken place- not in a defensive mode.

Paul may have been taking part of this concept of 'revenger' from Numbers 35 where it talks about the revenger of blood- Strongs defines the word in #1558 as:

'...carryijg justice out, i.e. a punisher; from #1557, vindication, retribution...

From this it appears to me that the sword of Rom. 13 is only authorized to act as a revenger upon someone who has murdered another person.

Now, moving on, it would be better that you consider your own jeopardy first. I have no sense of jeopardy. Paul was a man. He wrote letters. He claimed the Holy Spirit. He wrote many things. Some people hold that many of the letters attributed to him were not his. Well, I'm speaking here of all the letters called Pauline. There is much within them with which I agree. There are some things with which I totally disagree because the Holy Spirit informs me that some of Paul's positions don't jibe with Jesus and don't jibe with truth or what is best to have in mind.

I can guarantee you that God doesn't have the Paul-mentality of the Pauline Epistles guarding the gates of my Heaven. Jesus's mind does that.

I consider Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles and was the wise masterbuilder who laid the foundation upon which we are to be building.

Paul said 'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.'

We are saved if we keep in memory what he preached, and the gospel that was given to him was by Revelation and is certified that his gospel was not of men.

I am like Peter who said there are some things which Paul said that are hard to understand, but Peter acknowledged that the wisdom that was given to him was of God.

"What other scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said?" And when did you stop beating your wife? No scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said. I am not misunderstanding Romans 13. It is only your opinion that I am.

I wasn't intending my statement to be a false accusation towards you.

I realize you are not claiming to misunderstand Rom. 13 in that context, but the basis for your rejection of Romans 13 is that there seems to be an irreconcilable difference between what Jesus said and what Paul said.

I do not think there can be any valid claim about taking what Jesus said over what Paul said without jeopordizing the foundation which consists of both the apostles and Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.

The same Jesus that inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and told him that he had appeared unto him for this purpose- to make him a minister and a witness both of these things which he had seen, and of those things in the which He would appear unto him. (Acts 26:13-18)

Was not this this the same Luke writing this account that wrote the gospel of Luke? Is not this account just as scriptural as the gospel of Luke?

Did not the same Jesus that called Luke call Paul?

Does not Paul himself write to the Corinthians and say that some were saying I am of Christ, I am of Paul, and I am of Appollos? Did Paul commend those that took 'Jesus word over Paul's word?'

No, he said they were still carnal- not spiritual and were still babes in Christ.

If Jesus inspired and revealed the gospel that Paul preached, then where is the basis for 'taking Jesus word' over Paul?

Paul was grateful to God for the Thessalonians in that '...they received what the apostles said not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God..." (I Thess. 2:13)

He then discounts any deviation from the gospel he preached by saying that if any man (including me and you) or even if an angel from heaven would preach any other gospel to than what he had already preached, to let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:7-9)

I think I am going to have to close for now because the post is getting too long and trying to cover too many things- I think we will end up writing novels to each other.

However I still want to continue looking at the rest of what you are saying but probably would be better to do in smaller bites.

Blessings to you

Concerning "higher powers," I suggest you consider the following in light of your assertions:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ASV)
What are the powers there? Now, you might say that they don't include the "higher" powers because it doesn't say it verbatim — that if he meant higher as opposed to lower or dark or evil, etc., he would have said it. Perhaps that's his mentality. Now though consider Jesus's own view related to you.

In the context of what Paul is saying, I would think that the powers and principalities would be adversarial in nature- but of course the 'adversarial' part would depend on me and on what position I would be in at the time.

For example, in Joshua 5:13, Joshua encounters a man with his sword drawn in his hand. Joshua proceeds up to ask him, "Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?"

The answer was "NAY: But as the captain of the host of the Lord am I now come."

I think this just drives home the point, that God is with us when we are with him- and he is not partial to us because of anything of ourselves.

I have considered two scriptures directly upon this line- and they both use the same type of verbage but in two different contexts.

Look at Titus 3:1 - 'Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates...'

See that phrase- principalities and powers?

In Titus it is used in a postitive sense of subjection and obediance.

But look at Eph. 6:12 where it uses the same verbage as follows:

'For we wrestle not against flesh and blood but AGAINST principalities, AGAINST powers, AGAINST the rulers of the darkness of this world, AGAINST spiritual wickedness in high places.'

See the contrast in contexts: in one we are to be in subjection to principalities and powers and in the other we are wrestling against them.

The phrase in Eph. gets my attention- '...against the RULERS of the darkness of this world...'

In this contrast Paul says we don't wrestle against flesh and blood, but we do wrestle against the rulers of darkness- so in that light there is a distinction between the physical person and the power that he is being directed or influenced by.

As humans, I believe the flesh and blood rulers are being used by either God or Satan. and one scripture plainly states that the spirit of the devil works in the children of disobediance. (Eph.2:2)

I don't mean to confuse who is the ultimate head of all principality and power, which is of course Jesus Christ because there is the element showing in Job that Satan gets permission from God to do what he does.

The prophet Isaiah prophesies some 200 years before Cyrus appeared that he would be the one annointed by God to do God's pleasure and allow the Jews to return and build up Jerusalem.

Matthew 2:16-18 tells us that the prophesy given by Jeremiah some 600 years prior was fulfilled by Herod when he went out and killed all the children around Bethlehem 2 years old and under.

Two different kings- both fulfilling prophesy, one on the good side and one on the evil side.

We also see the same thing about spirits influencing earthly kings in II Chron. 18:18-22 and in I Kings 22:19-23.

The Lord is there with all the hosts of heaven and he asks- 'Who will persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?'

One answered after this manner and one after that, and then a spirit came forth and said- "I will persuade him."

What did the spirit say? He said 'I will go forth and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets." Then the Lord says "Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so"

Just by reading the text you would not have known all this had gone on behind the scene. All it says in II Kings 22:10-12 was that Zedekiah made horns of iron and said, "Thus saith the Lord, With these shalt thou push the Syrians until thou have consumed them. And all the prophets prophesied so, saying, Go up to Ramoth-giliead, and prosper: for the Lord shall deliver it into the king's hand."

Of course that is not just something that happened in the Old Testament for we see some of the same type of element working in Revelation 17:17-

"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled."

What does this do but repeat what Proverbs had already said, 'The kings heart is in the hand of the Lord, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will."

In reality I don't think this negates the free will of the ruler at all. God hardened Pharoah's heart after he willingly refused to let the children of Israel go even though in his forknoweldge he knew he wouldn't let them go- God still gave him the opportunity.

What I am focusing on is the phrase 'the rulers of the darkness of this world' because it ties in with the next phrase, 'against spiritual wickedness in high places.'

One translation puts it 'against wicked spirits in high places.'

It seems that this is an all encompassing element when he says 'the rulers of the darkness of this world.'

Of course the darkness is not literal but comes from the word skia #4639 (Strongs) which is defined as the darkness of error. or as an 'adumbration' which means 'an imperfect portrayal or representation of a thing.'

I believe it is this imperfect representation that we continually stuggle against as Christians, no matter what area is being misrepresented.

The example was given about a rocket aimed at landing on the moon. It is said to be off course some 90% of the time, but because it keeps getting corrective signals from earth it ultimately lands on the moon.

I don't think it can be avoided that the devil is the prince of the power of the air and as he said to Jesus when he was being tempted in the wilderness, that the devil was given the power to give the kingdoms of this world to whomsoever he will.

I think we cannot pigeon-hole any of the scriptures at the expense of the others. There is this constant tension between good and evil that is going on all the time. Just as sure as someone can do evil, someone can also do good.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18 ASV)

How do you read that?

I actually was just having a lengthy conversation with a brother about that very scripture.

Some of the content of that was the scripture in Job when the Lord asks Satan where he came from.

Satan answered "from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it."

In this verse it shows Satan is in the earth, as it also shows Satan was in the earth in the Garden of Eden.

What it seems to me is that the war in heaven between Michael and the Dragon occured sometime before the serpent appeared in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve.

Rev. 12:7-9 states that the great dragon ...was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him, and that they:

"...prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven."

So it seems from that the devil and his angels has been on the earth from the Garden of Eden until now- what do you make of the statement that Jesus beheld Satan fall from heaven like lightning?

(I am probably not answering your question the way you were directing it- I think there are also implications that Jesus meant Satan was defeated by the power Jesus gave to the disciples- but as far as Jesus trimphing over principalities and powers I believe that he made a show of them openly by his resurrection from the dead- putting himself above any and all power in heaven or in earth.)

Secondly, you use much violence in your analogies. Why is that if you are not in a violent frame of mind, even if subconsciously? I have used such analogies too. I am though explaining that it is not due to my desired mental state but rather due to the world speaking in such terms (using violent analogies even to attempt to make Christian points).

I believe I've seen your analogies elsewhere nearly verbatim if not verbatim. What brought you here, and where else have you made this case you are presenting here?

I am sorry, I am not intentionally trying to use violent settings- I just saw the phrase about the person shooting a robber in his pajamas which was showing how the wording needing further explanation to show what was actually being said- it seemed easy to understand but maybe I should find a different way to explain it.

As for seeing this somewhere before I don't think it was me- because I have just recently gotten involved in Romans 13 out of my own desire to understand it.

After doing some thinking on Romans 13 it seemed more reasonable to think that Paul was defining what true rulers were rather than trying to say that all rulers are good and God's servants whether they are good or bad.

After doing a bit more searching I actually found a preacher (Jonathon Mayhew) during the time of the American Revolution that was preaching this exact thing here-
http://hushmoney.org/Unlimited.....Mayhew.htm.

It appears to me that you hold with the death penalty. I did mention it, but I see that your most recent comment didn't address the issue of Jesus's pacifism and teaching against killing and the death penalty

I believe there must be direct line drawn in the sand between the Old and New Testament.

I look at Jesus as being the chief corner stone between the prophets and apostles.

The building took a turn when Jesus appeared and a person can see this transition taking place from the Old to the New Testament.

For example in one place Jesus tells them to go offer the sacrifice that Moses commanded, and yet in another place Jesus negates the law concerning an eye for an eye and a tooth for tooth.

So those who would attempt to impose the death penalty for the things itemized in the law of Moses are only going to find themselves to be hypocrites because neither they themselves or anyone else is keeping all those statutes.

Who will take their rebellious son outside the city and stone him, or who will go about to round up the witches and the homosexuals and kill them?

Seeing we cannot impose the law of Moses upon believers (or even apply it to unbelievers)we must look to the New Testament and rightly divide the word of truth.

I agree with you as Jesus said that they without sin should cast the first stone, and no I don't believe that the account of the woman in adultery was later added to the text and not in the original.

The saying that it is not in the oldest manuscripts shows nothing of its authenticity- old copies can be tampered with in the same way newer ones could be.

The one verse that agrees with Revelation 13 where it says 'he that kills with the sword must be killed with the sword agrees with Genesis before the law of Moses saying 'whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood be shed- for in the image of God made he man.'

It puts all the elements of a 'pre-emptive war' out of the picture and shows only a narrow view of what is acceptable before God in the New Testament.

No death for adultery, rebellion, dishonoring of parents or gathering sticks on the Sabbath day.

Romans 13 is showing the minister of God to be a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil- not as Bush or Hitler or Obama going in killing the innocents based upon a suspicion of what they might do someday.

A 'revenger' of necessity must act upon the premise of something that has already taken place- not in a defensive mode.

Paul may have been taking part of this concept of 'revenger' from Numbers 35 where it talks about the revenger of blood- Strongs defines the word in #1558 as:

'...carryijg justice out, i.e. a punisher; from #1557, vindication, retribution...

From this it appears to me that the sword of Rom. 13 is only authorized to act as a revenger upon someone who has murdered another person.

Now, moving on, it would be better that you consider your own jeopardy first. I have no sense of jeopardy. Paul was a man. He wrote letters. He claimed the Holy Spirit. He wrote many things. Some people hold that many of the letters attributed to him were not his. Well, I'm speaking here of all the letters called Pauline. There is much within them with which I agree. There are some things with which I totally disagree because the Holy Spirit informs me that some of Paul's positions don't jibe with Jesus and don't jibe with truth or what is best to have in mind.

I can guarantee you that God doesn't have the Paul-mentality of the Pauline Epistles guarding the gates of my Heaven. Jesus's mind does that.

I consider Paul to be the apostle to the Gentiles and was the wise masterbuilder who laid the foundation upon which we are to be building.

Paul said 'For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.'

We are saved if we keep in memory what he preached, and the gospel that was given to him was by Revelation and is certified that his gospel was not of men.

I am like Peter who said there are some things which Paul said that are hard to understand, but Peter acknowledged that the wisdom that was given to him was of God.

"What other scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said?" And when did you stop beating your wife? No scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said. I am not misunderstanding Romans 13. It is only your opinion that I am.

I wasn't intending my statement to be a false accusation towards you.

I realize you are not claiming to misunderstand Rom. 13 in that context, but the basis for your rejection of Romans 13 is that there seems to be an irreconcilable difference between what Jesus said and what Paul said.

I do not think there can be any valid claim about taking what Jesus said over what Paul said without jeopordizing the foundation which consists of both the apostles and Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.

The same Jesus that inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus and told him that he had appeared unto him for this purpose- to make him a minister and a witness both of these things which he had seen, and of those things in the which He would appear unto him. (Acts 26:13-18)

Was not this this the same Luke writing this account that wrote the gospel of Luke? Is not this account just as scriptural as the gospel of Luke?

Did not the same Jesus that called Luke call Paul?

Does not Paul himself write to the Corinthians and say that some were saying I am of Christ, I am of Paul, and I am of Appollos? Did Paul commend those that took 'Jesus word over Paul's word?'

No, he said they were still carnal- not spiritual and were still babes in Christ.

If Jesus inspired and revealed the gospel that Paul preached, then where is the basis for 'taking Jesus word' over Paul?

Paul was grateful to God for the Thessalonians in that '...they received what the apostles said not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God..." (I Thess. 2:13)

He then discounts any deviation from the gospel he preached by saying that if any man (including me and you) or even if an angel from heaven would preach any other gospel to than what he had already preached, to let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:7-9)

I think I am going to have to close for now because the post is getting too long and trying to cover too many things- I think we will end up writing novels to each other.

However I still want to continue looking at the rest of what you are saying but probably would be better to do in smaller bites.

Blessings to you

You are thinking. I don't take that away from you. You are though missing it. Let me address a two points in your previous comment before going on to your latest immediately above.

Concerning "higher powers," I suggest you consider the following in light of your assertions:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ASV)

What are the powers there? Now, you might say that they don't include the "higher" powers because it doesn't say it verbatim — that if he meant higher as opposed to lower or dark or evil, etc., he would have said it. Perhaps that's his mentality. Now though consider Jesus's own view related to you.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18 ASV)

How do you read that?

Secondly, you use much violence in your analogies. Why is that if you are not in a violent frame of mind, even if subconsciously? I have used such analogies too. I am though explaining that it is not due to my desired mental state but rather due to the world speaking in such terms (using violent analogies even to attempt to make Christian points).

I believe I've seen your analogies elsewhere nearly verbatim if not verbatim. What brought you here, and where else have you made this case you are presenting here?

It appears to me that you hold with the death penalty. I did mention it, but I see that your most recent comment didn't address the issue of Jesus's pacifism and teaching against killing and the death penalty.

Are you one who believes that John 7:53-8:11 was an emendation by a later scribe? I understand that the view is held by many who practice "textural criticism" and/or "higher criticism." As to all the particulars surrounding it, I won't say. I will say that it is Holy Scripture. It reflects my mind regardless.

Now, moving on, it would be better that you consider your own jeopardy first. I have no sense of jeopardy. Paul was a man. He wrote letters. He claimed the Holy Spirit. He wrote many things. Some people hold that many of the letters attributed to him were not his. Well, I'm speaking here of all the letters called Pauline. There is much within them with which I agree. There are some things with which I totally disagree because the Holy Spirit informs me that some of Paul's positions don't jibe with Jesus and don't jibe with truth or what is best to have in mind.

I can guarantee you that God doesn't have the Paul-mentality of the Pauline Epistles guarding the gates of my Heaven. Jesus's mind does that.

"What other scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said?" And when did you stop beating your wife? No scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said. I am not misunderstanding Romans 13. It is only your opinion that I am.

Look, Jesus was subject to Pontius Pilate because of the spiritual power. Jesus was subject to Caiaphas too for the same reason. However, Jesus did not obey Caiaphas in Caiaphas's mind but rather pointed out Caiaphas's hypocrisy, for which Caiaphas conspired to have Jesus murdered by the "state" or worldly empire: Roman Empire.

Now, you have to understand that scripture was selected by committee. You have to understand that evil spirits and good spirits influence. When Moses wrote that God said to go to what is today Israel/Palestine and commit complete genocide, which spirit was it? What would Jesus have said to Moses about that at the time? What does Jesus tell you now? I know what he tells me. He tells me that it was hard-heartedness and not God. There is a debate in the Bible about whether God is the one and only and hence author of evil, or whether God is the absence of hard-heartedness and the wrathful spirit is actually the Satanic. This is on account of the seeming paradox and how to reconcile it. Jesus came to advance human kind's understanding of God's true nature. Mercy and forgiveness is God's true nature, but God does not coercively stop Satan from devouring.

There are rules of God's over which Satan has no control. Jesus was not kept imprisoned by death on account of those rules. This is the way of it. Satan tempted Jesus to execute wrath. Jesus rejected the rebellion. He refused to join. He rather saw through it, spoke out, and was murdered for it but lives.

Who chose the "66" books of the Bible? Not everyone agrees with the choices. There is the narrow canon and the wide canon. Many believe that the hand of God guided the choice of the 66. For them, it is circularly self-proven. This of course is the mentality in all things, including the atheists', even anti-theist's, science. Does all the Bible state Jesus's truths? The scriptures before him in the worldly temporal sense leads up to them.

As for rendering unto Caesar, the point was that mammon is a human invention and did not come out from godliness. Caesar held out that he was a god on Earth. His worship was in direct conflict with accepting Jesus and Jesus's message. To certain of the Caesar's, the Empire was personal property. He was the sovereign and none other. Under such mentality, Jesus belonged to Caesar. However, clearly Caesar was wrong and Jesus never rendered unto Caesar Jesus's allegiance or respect or honor, etc. He simply gave Caesar's mammon to Caesar's Empire and to Caesar's vassals, the Sanhedrin and Temple at the time.

Paul's letter does not appreciate nor anticipate this enough. That's clear and plain on its face. It's self-evident.

Are you under the impression that Paul was infallible? I'm not.

We are not obliged to pay taxes because Barack Obama is executing wrath upon Taliban babies. If you think so, you are lost and dead of the Holy Spirit of truth. Now, if you hold that Obama is not God's minister (I hold he is not); but you still hold with Paul, who then is God's minister on Earth executing wrath, even as Jesus told us not to call down wrath? Why tempt God? Why tempt ye me? Do you know that you are attempting to tempt here.

You said what you believe. Are you capable of changing and growing in the truth?

See how it is worded- tribute to whom tribute is due? What if they don't fulfill their obligation to God and actually become a terror to good works- is honour still due them? Is respect for them still due to them? Is tribute still due to them?

Are we still to respect Hitler or Nero and honour them?

And who was Caesar? You're getting tangled up here. Surely you can see that, back up, look at it, ask God, and be brave enough to see more than Paul was given to see or write.

See how Jesus actually did obligate people to render unto Ceasar that which actually belongs to him? How did he arrive at the right to collect the tribute? Was it just because he was Ceasar or does it actually depend on what both Paul and Jesus are saying- that it depends on the actions of the rulers- not on their position only.

Are you asking questions here with an open mind, or are you attempting to justify yourself?

Jesus did not justify Caesar. He did not say to you to pay your taxes to Caesar because Caesar is God's rightful minister, far from it. Understand that tribute went to the Roman Empire and to its vassals. Jesus paid it all. Nowhere does that sanctify the actions of those entities. Those entities actually murdered Jesus, which Jesus clearly said was sin.

Of course the more rulers become ungodly, the more they emphasize the power of the sword and ignore the responsibilty of discerning the good and the evil and actually become oppressors and distort judgment as we see in America and other countries today.

You are trying here. Jesus did speak in both relative and absolute terms. You appear capable of doing that too. The thing for us to do though is to focus on the perfect. This is the thing that the unbelievers hate the most. The perfect is the most censored thing in this world. It is banned. It is marginalized. It is persecuted. If it comes to light, it means the downfall of the selfish and greedy and violent and sexually depraved. Dwell on it. Ask God directly for guidance. Have your private conversation with the Holy Spirit. Ask for the courage to gain greater insight. I don't fear it. I don't fear it at all. Who do you know who would counsel you not to do it? Beware.

Even though we are not scripturally obligated to pay for what is going on- they use this unlawful force and bring us in subjection which is what is called oppression, and slavery.

Bravo!

Just as if a man comes into your house and demands everything you have at gunpoint- I don't think it is a sin to give up everything in order to save your life.

You aren't going to take your material possessions with you anyway. Have faith in God. Jesus teaches you not to fight evil with evil. You don't give up everything to save your fleshly life. You don't resist violent evil so you won't lose your soul that is your eternal life.

I think that the sword of Romans 13 is a valid deterant to evil, but there must be an understanding of good and evil before anyone has a right to use it.

None has that but God, who says leave it to me; and if we do, none kills or murders: peace. Brilliant truth that, and it is censored by the wicked!

See where else you can find it right now. You won't but on this site. Truth.

There others out there who know it and believe it and say it in so many words, but they are marginalized, yet known to God of course. Our job is to come together to shed a powerful beacon rather than scattered, small points.

Peace

You are thinking. I don't take that away from you. You are though missing it. Let me address a two points in your previous comment before going on to your latest immediately above.

Concerning "higher powers," I suggest you consider the following in light of your assertions:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39 ASV)

What are the powers there? Now, you might say that they don't include the "higher" powers because it doesn't say it verbatim — that if he meant higher as opposed to lower or dark or evil, etc., he would have said it. Perhaps that's his mentality. Now though consider Jesus's own view related to you.

And he said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18 ASV)

How do you read that?

Secondly, you use much violence in your analogies. Why is that if you are not in a violent frame of mind, even if subconsciously? I have used such analogies too. I am though explaining that it is not due to my desired mental state but rather due to the world speaking in such terms (using violent analogies even to attempt to make Christian points).

I believe I've seen your analogies elsewhere nearly verbatim if not verbatim. What brought you here, and where else have you made this case you are presenting here?

It appears to me that you hold with the death penalty. I did mention it, but I see that your most recent comment didn't address the issue of Jesus's pacifism and teaching against killing and the death penalty.

Are you one who believes that John 7:53-8:11 was an emendation by a later scribe? I understand that the view is held by many who practice "textural criticism" and/or "higher criticism." As to all the particulars surrounding it, I won't say. I will say that it is Holy Scripture. It reflects my mind regardless.

Now, moving on, it would be better that you consider your own jeopardy first. I have no sense of jeopardy. Paul was a man. He wrote letters. He claimed the Holy Spirit. He wrote many things. Some people hold that many of the letters attributed to him were not his. Well, I'm speaking here of all the letters called Pauline. There is much within them with which I agree. There are some things with which I totally disagree because the Holy Spirit informs me that some of Paul's positions don't jibe with Jesus and don't jibe with truth or what is best to have in mind.

I can guarantee you that God doesn't have the Paul-mentality of the Pauline Epistles guarding the gates of my Heaven. Jesus's mind does that.

"What other scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said?" And when did you stop beating your wife? No scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said. I am not misunderstanding Romans 13. It is only your opinion that I am.

Look, Jesus was subject to Pontius Pilate because of the spiritual power. Jesus was subject to Caiaphas too for the same reason. However, Jesus did not obey Caiaphas in Caiaphas's mind but rather pointed out Caiaphas's hypocrisy, for which Caiaphas conspired to have Jesus murdered by the "state" or worldly empire: Roman Empire.

Now, you have to understand that scripture was selected by committee. You have to understand that evil spirits and good spirits influence. When Moses wrote that God said to go to what is today Israel/Palestine and commit complete genocide, which spirit was it? What would Jesus have said to Moses about that at the time? What does Jesus tell you now? I know what he tells me. He tells me that it was hard-heartedness and not God. There is a debate in the Bible about whether God is the one and only and hence author of evil, or whether God is the absence of hard-heartedness and the wrathful spirit is actually the Satanic. This is on account of the seeming paradox and how to reconcile it. Jesus came to advance human kind's understanding of God's true nature. Mercy and forgiveness is God's true nature, but God does not coercively stop Satan from devouring.

There are rules of God's over which Satan has no control. Jesus was not kept imprisoned by death on account of those rules. This is the way of it. Satan tempted Jesus to execute wrath. Jesus rejected the rebellion. He refused to join. He rather saw through it, spoke out, and was murdered for it but lives.

Who chose the "66" books of the Bible? Not everyone agrees with the choices. There is the narrow canon and the wide canon. Many believe that the hand of God guided the choice of the 66. For them, it is circularly self-proven. This of course is the mentality in all things, including the atheists', even anti-theist's, science. Does all the Bible state Jesus's truths? The scriptures before him in the worldly temporal sense leads up to them.

As for rendering unto Caesar, the point was that mammon is a human invention and did not come out from godliness. Caesar held out that he was a god on Earth. His worship was in direct conflict with accepting Jesus and Jesus's message. To certain of the Caesar's, the Empire was personal property. He was the sovereign and none other. Under such mentality, Jesus belonged to Caesar. However, clearly Caesar was wrong and Jesus never rendered unto Caesar Jesus's allegiance or respect or honor, etc. He simply gave Caesar's mammon to Caesar's Empire and to Caesar's vassals, the Sanhedrin and Temple at the time.

Paul's letter does not appreciate nor anticipate this enough. That's clear and plain on its face. It's self-evident.

Are you under the impression that Paul was infallible? I'm not.

We are not obliged to pay taxes because Barack Obama is executing wrath upon Taliban babies. If you think so, you are lost and dead of the Holy Spirit of truth. Now, if you hold that Obama is not God's minister (I hold he is not); but you still hold with Paul, who then is God's minister on Earth executing wrath, even as Jesus told us not to call down wrath? Why tempt God? Why tempt ye me? Do you know that you are attempting to tempt here.

You said what you believe. Are you capable of changing and growing in the truth?

See how it is worded- tribute to whom tribute is due? What if they don't fulfill their obligation to God and actually become a terror to good works- is honour still due them? Is respect for them still due to them? Is tribute still due to them?

Are we still to respect Hitler or Nero and honour them?

And who was Caesar? You're getting tangled up here. Surely you can see that, back up, look at it, ask God, and be brave enough to see more than Paul was given to see or write.

See how Jesus actually did obligate people to render unto Ceasar that which actually belongs to him? How did he arrive at the right to collect the tribute? Was it just because he was Ceasar or does it actually depend on what both Paul and Jesus are saying- that it depends on the actions of the rulers- not on their position only.

Are you asking questions here with an open mind, or are you attempting to justify yourself?

Jesus did not justify Caesar. He did not say to you to pay your taxes to Caesar because Caesar is God's rightful minister, far from it. Understand that tribute went to the Roman Empire and to its vassals. Jesus paid it all. Nowhere does that sanctify the actions of those entities. Those entities actually murdered Jesus, which Jesus clearly said was sin.

Of course the more rulers become ungodly, the more they emphasize the power of the sword and ignore the responsibilty of discerning the good and the evil and actually become oppressors and distort judgment as we see in America and other countries today.

You are trying here. Jesus did speak in both relative and absolute terms. You appear capable of doing that too. The thing for us to do though is to focus on the perfect. This is the thing that the unbelievers hate the most. The perfect is the most censored thing in this world. It is banned. It is marginalized. It is persecuted. If it comes to light, it means the downfall of the selfish and greedy and violent and sexually depraved. Dwell on it. Ask God directly for guidance. Have your private conversation with the Holy Spirit. Ask for the courage to gain greater insight. I don't fear it. I don't fear it at all. Who do you know who would counsel you not to do it? Beware.

Even though we are not scripturally obligated to pay for what is going on- they use this unlawful force and bring us in subjection which is what is called oppression, and slavery.

Bravo!

Just as if a man comes into your house and demands everything you have at gunpoint- I don't think it is a sin to give up everything in order to save your life.

You aren't going to take your material possessions with you anyway. Have faith in God. Jesus teaches you not to fight evil with evil. You don't give up everything to save your fleshly life. You don't resist violent evil so you won't lose your soul that is your eternal life.

I think that the sword of Romans 13 is a valid deterant to evil, but there must be an understanding of good and evil before anyone has a right to use it.

None has that but God, who says leave it to me; and if we do, none kills or murders: peace. Brilliant truth that, and it is censored by the wicked!

See where else you can find it right now. You won't but on this site. Truth.

There others out there who know it and believe it and say it in so many words, but they are marginalized, yet known to God of course. Our job is to come together to shed a powerful beacon rather than scattered, small points.

Peace

Realize the jeopardy you are putting yourself in by saying that Paul missed it.

What other scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said?

There have been people looking at certain scriptures from an historical perspective and have discounted what was being said by them because they had no evidence of a certain king reigning during that time- but then later unearthed some evidence showing that the scripture was actually true.

It is our understanding, not the scripture that is the problem.

As far as rendering unto Ceaser I believe we should do that and I think it even connects with what Paul is saying in Romans 13.

Look at what he said - 'For this cause pay ye tribute...'

For what cause? If they are actually doing what rulers are to be doing (praising those who do well, and executing wrath upon him that doeth evil) then we become obligated for both wrath and conscience sake.

Then in verse 6 he says 'For for this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing.

I believe this is how come it is stated in the following verse 'Render THEREFORE (or in other words- because of this) to all their dues; tribute to who tribute is due; custom to who custom fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

See how it is worded- tribute to whom tribute is due? What if they don't fulfill their obligation to God and actually become a terror to good works- is honour still due them? Is respect for them still due to them? Is tribute still due to them?

Are we still to respect Hitler or Nero and honour them?

See how Jesus actually did obligate people to render unto Ceasar that which actually belongs to him? How did he arrive at the right to collect the tribute? Was it just because he was Ceasar or does it actually depend on what both Paul and Jesus are saying- that it depends on the actions of the rulers- not on their position only.

Of course the more rulers become ungodly, the more they emphasize the power of the sword and ignore the responsibilty of discerning the good and the evil and actually become oppressors and distort judgment as we see in America and other countries today.

Even though we are not scripturally obligated to pay for what is going on- they use this unlawful force and bring us in subjection which is what is called oppression, and slavery.

Just as if a man comes into your house and demands everything you have at gunpoint- I don't think it is a sin to give up everything in order to save your life.

But the oppression of people, be it the Negroe slaves, or oppressive taxes- I believe is still based on the perception of what is good and what is evil.

I think that the sword of Romans 13 is a valid deterant to evil, but there must be an understanding of good and evil before anyone has a right to use it.

Realize the jeopardy you are putting yourself in by saying that Paul missed it.

What other scriptures are we to discount because of a misunderstanding of what is said?

There have been people looking at certain scriptures from an historical perspective and have discounted what was being said by them because they had no evidence of a certain king reigning during that time- but then later unearthed some evidence showing that the scripture was actually true.

It is our understanding, not the scripture that is the problem.

As far as rendering unto Ceaser I believe we should do that and I think it even connects with what Paul is saying in Romans 13.

Look at what he said - 'For this cause pay ye tribute...'

For what cause? If they are actually doing what rulers are to be doing (praising those who do well, and executing wrath upon him that doeth evil) then we become obligated for both wrath and conscience sake.

Then in verse 6 he says 'For for this cause pay ye tribute also, for they are God's ministers attending continually upon this very thing.

I believe this is how come it is stated in the following verse 'Render THEREFORE (or in other words- because of this) to all their dues; tribute to who tribute is due; custom to who custom fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

See how it is worded- tribute to whom tribute is due? What if they don't fulfill their obligation to God and actually become a terror to good works- is honour still due them? Is respect for them still due to them? Is tribute still due to them?

Are we still to respect Hitler or Nero and honour them?

See how Jesus actually did obligate people to render unto Ceasar that which actually belongs to him? How did he arrive at the right to collect the tribute? Was it just because he was Ceasar or does it actually depend on what both Paul and Jesus are saying- that it depends on the actions of the rulers- not on their position only.

Of course the more rulers become ungodly, the more they emphasize the power of the sword and ignore the responsibilty of discerning the good and the evil and actually become oppressors and distort judgment as we see in America and other countries today.

Even though we are not scripturally obligated to pay for what is going on- they use this unlawful force and bring us in subjection which is what is called oppression, and slavery.

Just as if a man comes into your house and demands everything you have at gunpoint- I don't think it is a sin to give up everything in order to save your life.

But the oppression of people, be it the Negroe slaves, or oppressive taxes- I believe is still based on the perception of what is good and what is evil.

I think that the sword of Romans 13 is a valid deterant to evil, but there must be an understanding of good and evil before anyone has a right to use it.

I believe you are serious, but how you can be serious and hold this position is amazing. So, Paul is saying not to follow the orders of evil rulers. Don't be subject to them, etc. Refuse their orders. Don't pay taxes to them (tribute of a sort – rendering to Caesar). You're trying to bring him into line with Jesus, but he still doesn't fit even with this backward attempt.

He was talking about rulers who carry out wrath against what Paul considered evil. He was talking about the death penalty. Does that fit with your view of the government, order, state, kingdom, or what have you, that Jesus tells us to bring in?

No, your view doesn't work. Paul messed up. I forgive him, but I don't follow his letters as if Jesus wrote them and neither should you.

Peace

I believe you are serious, but how you can be serious and hold this position is amazing. So, Paul is saying not to follow the orders of evil rulers. Don't be subject to them, etc. Refuse their orders. Don't pay taxes to them (tribute of a sort – rendering to Caesar). You're trying to bring him into line with Jesus, but he still doesn't fit even with this backward attempt.

He was talking about rulers who carry out wrath against what Paul considered evil. He was talking about the death penalty. Does that fit with your view of the government, order, state, kingdom, or what have you, that Jesus tells us to bring in?

No, your view doesn't work. Paul messed up. I forgive him, but I don't follow his letters as if Jesus wrote them and neither should you.

Peace