Firearms Refresher Course

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

CONTEXT!! CONTEXT!! Here is what it says in CONTEXT:



Here, this may be easier:



Sister, your usage of Paul's writing is completely out of context. Paul is speaking of a family's reasonability to monetarily take care of the widows in their family.

Reading passages out of context leads to all kinds of unbiblical things. Even to believing that Jesus thinks it is okay for His kids to kill people.

See, I knew you'd say I was taking it out of context, but I don't believe Paul was admonishing men to care only monetarily for their own family.

See, perhaps that's what he meant in speaking about others, like the widows and fatherless, but he didn't say that one was worse than an infidel for not providing for those people.

Paul wasn't specific, except to say that if a man doesn't provide (this is an action verb here), he is worse than an infidel. I don't believe Paul was just referring to monetary commitment by the man to his family. Men do that all the time but don't care for their families in any other way. I call them 'deadbeat dads', even if they do pay the child support.

According to you, as long as the support is made, the man is ok. Well, he's not. He's not providing for his own in all the other ways necessary, thus he is worse than an infidel, as Paul said.

Men are not admonished to care for others the same way they provide for their own.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

According to you, as long as the support is made, the man is ok. Well, he's not. He's not providing for his own in all the other ways necessary, thus he is worse than an infidel, as Paul said.

I never said what you said I did here. Never one time. It also is NOT my belief. You not only misrepresent me, but you also do it to Paul. As far as Paul saying what you claim, look again:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

See, I knew you'd say I was taking it out of context, but I don't believe Paul was admonishing men to care only monetarily for their own family.

See, perhaps that's what he meant in speaking about others, like the widows and fatherless, but he didn't say that one was worse than an infidel for not providing for those people.

Paul wasn't specific, except to say that if a man doesn't provide (this is an action verb here), he is worse than an infidel. I don't believe Paul was just referring to monetary commitment by the man to his family. Men do that all the time but don't care for their families in any other way. I call them 'deadbeat dads', even if they do pay the child support.

Men are not admonished to care for others the same way they provide for their own.

Too much use of "I" here to merit saying your points establish biblical Truth. The context bears out that the context of Paul's writing is only concerned with reminding a WIDOW’S children and grandchildren to supply her daily sustenance needs. Sorry, but your opinion just does not carry as much weight as Paul's CONTEXT. Remember, in biblical hermeneutics, context is KING.

The no-scripture-needed crowd always use "I think, "I believe," "I think," “could be” or “PERHAPS” when describing private interpretations of Scripture. Where does such a process agree with "rightly diving the WORD of GOD"?

Sola Scriptura, Sister!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

I never said what you said I did here. Never one time. It also is NOT my belief. You not only misrepresent me, but you also do it to Paul. As far as Paul saying what you claim, look again:



Too much use of "I" here to merit saying your points establish biblical Truth. The context bears out that the context of Paul's writing is only concerned with reminding a WIDOW’S children and grandchildren to supply her daily sustenance needs. Sorry, but your opinion just does not carry as much weight as Paul's CONTEXT. Remember, in biblical hermeneutics, context is KING.

The no-scripture-needed crowd always use "I think, "I believe," "I think," “could be” or “PERHAPS” when describing private interpretations of Scripture. Where does such a process agree with "rightly diving the WORD of GOD"?

Sola Scriptura, Sister!

Are you saying you never say 'I believe' when speaking about your beliefs in regard to scripture? Don't make me do a search of your posts!

Paul said a man who doesn't provide (this verb is left open with no supporting noun, ever wonder why?) for his family is worse than an infidel. You claim that Paul is speaking of the same support he admonishes those same men to give to the widows and fatherless, yet he doesn't tell them they are worse than infidels if they don't provide for those people. Why not?

You say Paul is referring to monetary support only. I'm telling you that fathers do that all the time, even though they don't even see nor speak to their own children but pay because the court said they had to. And you don't think those men are worse than infidels because they are at least sending money to the children? Give me a break!

If Paul is speaking only of monetary issues, does this mean the man is exempt (if he so chooses) from giving them food, clothing, and shelter because Paul didn't tell him to? I mean, by what you are saying, you give every deadbeat an excuse for his actions, IMO.

Paul wanted men to provide. Period.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

Are you saying you never say 'I believe' when speaking about your beliefs in regard to scripture? Don't make me do a search of your posts!

Paul said a man who doesn't provide (this verb is left open with no supporting noun, ever wonder why?) for his family is worse than an infidel. You claim that Paul is speaking of the same support he admonishes those same men to give to the widows and fatherless, yet he doesn't tell them they are worse than infidels if they don't provide for those people. Why not?

You say Paul is referring to monetary support only. I'm telling you that fathers do that all the time, even though they don't even see nor speak to their own children but pay because the court said they had to. And you don't think those men are worse than infidels because they are at least sending money to the children? Give me a break!

If Paul is speaking only of monetary issues, does this mean the man is exempt (if he so chooses) from giving them food, clothing, and shelter because Paul didn't tell him to? I mean, by what you are saying, you give every deadbeat an excuse for his actions, IMO.

Paul wanted men to provide. Period.

Your post did not start by saying you were against dead beat dad’s. You said that Paul said good men were those willing to take the life of an attacker. BIG Difference!

Again, you must learn that the Bible must be read in CONTEXT if it is to be understood!

Why are you struggling so to prove Paul is saying what he isn’t? When reading his words in context, Paul proves your stance is incorrect. Sister, it's okay to say when you are wrong. You’re beating a dead horse here. Paul’s words prove you wrong no matter how many “I thinks” you add to your posts. Your effort to make this passage say what you want it to is NOT helping your cause at all. In all sincerity, you would do better to leave this and move to passages that are truly in context with your statements. Then you can biblically substantiate your “I believe” statements. What you or I believe means NOTHING if we do not believe in harmony with Jesus’ Word.

God Bless you Sister!

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

Your post did not start by saying you were against dead beat dad’s. You said that Paul said good men were those willing to take the life of an attacker. BIG Difference!

Care to quote me on that? Cause I never said it nor implied such.

Again, you must learn that the Bible must be read in CONTEXT if it is to be understood!

I totally agree, but where Paul didn't mention specifics, just the action verb alone, you are trying to limit Paul's intentions in what he was saying in that verse.

Why are you struggling so to prove Paul is saying what he isn’t?

Uh, HELLO! That's EXACTLY what YOU are doing. I quoted scripture. You added to it.

When reading his words in context, Paul proves your stance is incorrect. Sister, it's okay to say when you are wrong. You’re beating a dead horse here. Paul’s words prove you wrong no matter how many “I thinks” you add to your posts. Your effort to make this passage say what you want it to is NOT helping your cause at all.

And you aren't doing the same thing? I quoted Paul, and you add what you think he was talking about by bringing in people who aren't the man's family as if they were.

In all sincerity, you would do better to leave this and move to passages that are truly in context with your statements. Then you can biblically substantiate your “I believe” statements. What you or I believe means NOTHING if we do not believe in harmony with Jesus’ Word.

God Bless you Sister!

Again, show me where protecting one's family is wrong. In addition, as someone else mentioned, show me where simply holding back an attacker is allowed by Christians, but stopping them with deadly force isn't.

You all are making up the rules as you go along.

In all sincerety.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

I totally agree, but where Paul didn't mention specifics, just the action verb alone, you are trying to limit Paul's intentions in what he was saying in that verse.

Uh, HELLO! That's EXACTLY what YOU are doing. I quoted scripture. You added to it.

And you aren't doing the same thing? I quoted Paul, and you add what you think he was talking about by bringing in people who aren't the man's family as if they were.

Okay, please find and post ANY credible Bible commentary that agrees with what you are saying about 1 Timothy 5:8. This is not me 'making up' or 'adding to' anything. You are just COMPLETELY out of context. NO ONE AGREES WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THIS PASSAGE. NO ONE!

I am puzzled about your following statement:

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

...you add what you think he was talking about by bringing in people who aren't the man's family as if they were.

I have no clue what you mean by this.

[HeavenlyOne]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

Okay, please find and post ANY credible Bible commentary that agrees with what you are saying about 1 Timothy 5:8. This is not me 'making up' or 'adding to' anything. You are just COMPLETELY out of context. NO ONE AGREES WITH WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THIS PASSAGE. NO ONE!

I am puzzled about your following statement:



I have no clue what you mean by this.

You will find it in the same place that you will find that grabbing an attacker to stop them is allowed in scripture, but using deadly force isn't.

Have fun!

[OP_Carl]

Originally Posted by HeavenlyOne

. . .
I totally agree, but where Paul didn't mention specifics, just the action verb alone, you are trying to limit Paul's intentions in what he was saying in that verse.

Uh, HELLO! That's EXACTLY what YOU are doing. I quoted scripture. You added to it.

And you aren't doing the same thing? I quoted Paul, and you add what you think he was talking about by bringing in people who aren't the man's family as if they were.

Again, show me where protecting one's family is wrong. In addition, as someone else mentioned, show me where simply holding back an attacker is allowed by Christians, but stopping them with deadly force isn't.
You all are making up the rules as you go along.
In all sincerety.

If a man is unwilling to do whatever it takes to stop an attacker from harming his family, he is worse than an infidel.

Abraham sacked a city and spoiled it in response to members of his extended family being captured. Afterwards, he partied and paid tithe. Abraham was a friend of God.

The law required an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Things were set up to provide the best shot at fairness. Men were expected to avenge the blood of their kinsmen. God doesn't change, but now we have people who don't believe God wants them to be willing to fight for their families.

Brother Strange nailed it when he said that such actions, if needed, would be performed out of love for those protected.

I pray for protection, and I believe in divine protection. Yet many of God's mysterious ways of moving are through the words and deeds of men.

I wonder if EB and L&F have ever discussed this with their wives. I mean actually told them that if an intruder attacks the wife or kids that they aren't going to personally intervene, but rather ask God to do it. If this stance were explained prior to the wedding, most women would pause to reconsider the marriage.

While He was here, Jesus had needs in His flesh. Jesus met these needs of His flesh without sin. He ate, He drank, He slept, He built fires to keep warm, He obtained and wore clothing, He obtained and wore shoes, He got happy, He got sad and cried, He got angry and horsewhipped a bunch of heathen reprobates. Uh oh! Where did that come from??? oloroid

It isn't sin for us today to provide for the needs of our flesh. It's still a requirement for men to meet the needs of our families. EB and L&F, your wives and children need your leadership, your prayers, and your teaching, yes, but they also need your protection from evildoers in addition to the rent, clothes, and groceries.

The principles have been spelled out a hundred different ways here. Rather than acknowledge principles, a great deal of nitpicking the details has gone on. There is only one word for a person who doesn't want to acknowledge an inconvenient principle. There is only one word for a person who ducks behind a curtain of "chapter and verse only" (NT, by the way, if you please) when their hide is on the line.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

[b]While He was here, Jesus had needs in His flesh. Jesus met these needs of His flesh without sin. He ate, He drank, He slept, He built fires to keep warm, He obtained and wore clothing, He obtained and wore shoes, He got happy, He got sad and cried, He got angry and horsewhipped a bunch of heathen reprobates. Uh oh! Where did that come from??? oloroid

IAAAAMMMMMM BAAAACCCKKKK!

My departure was delayed until tomorrow due to time and wheather. Now to the above statement:

Do you guys even study?? WHERE DOES IT SAY JESUS BEAT THE MONEY-CHANGERS?? UNREAL!

Look at what IT DOES say:

(John 2:15 KJV) And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

(John 2:15 ALT) And having made a whip out of small cords, He cast out all [of them] out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen. And He poured out the coins of the money changers, and He overturned the tables.

(John 2:15 AMP) And having made a lash (a whip) of cords, He drove them all out of the temple [enclosure]--both the sheep and the oxen--spilling and scattering the brokers' money and upsetting and tossing around their trays (their stands).

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible
Of small cords - This whip was made as an emblem of authority, and also for the purpose of driving from the temple the cattle which had been brought there for sale. There is no evidence that he used any violence to the men engaged in that unhallowed traffic. The original word implies that these “cords” were made of twisted “rushes” or “reeds” - probably the ancient material for making ropes.

Robertson's Word Pictures
Cast out (exebalen). Second aorist active indicative of ekballō. It is not said that Jesus smote the sheep and oxen (note te kai, both and), for a flourish of the scourge would answer.

John Wesley's Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible
Joh 2:15 - Having made a scourge of rushes - (Which were strewed on the ground,) he drove all out of the temple, (that is, the court of it,) both the sheep and the oxen - Though it does not appear that he struck even them; and much less, any of the men. But a terror from God, it is evident, fell upon them.

Even if Jesus did use this whip to drive out the money-changes as well, there is NO WORD that He ever struck--or as you implied--beat them. To suggest Jesus beat these, or any other men, is to go against all else Jesus represented.

How could Jesus tell His disciples of peace with their enemy and then turn around and horse whip men in the Temple?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

If a man is unwilling to do whatever it takes to stop an attacker from harming his family, he is worse than an infidel.

Abraham sacked a city and spoiled it in response to members of his extended family being captured. Afterwards, he partied and paid tithe. Abraham was a friend of God.

The law required an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Things were set up to provide the best shot at fairness. Men were expected to avenge the blood of their kinsmen. God doesn't change, but now we have people who don't believe God wants them to be willing to fight for their families.

Brother Strange nailed it when he said that such actions, if needed, would be performed out of love for those protected.

I pray for protection, and I believe in divine protection. Yet many of God's mysterious ways of moving are through the words and deeds of men.

I wonder if EB and L&F have ever discussed this with their wives. I mean actually told them that if an intruder attacks the wife or kids that they aren't going to personally intervene, but rather ask God to do it. If this stance were explained prior to the wedding, most women would pause to reconsider the marriage.

While He was here, Jesus had needs in His flesh. Jesus met these needs of His flesh without sin. He ate, He drank, He slept, He built fires to keep warm, He obtained and wore clothing, He obtained and wore shoes, He got happy, He got sad and cried, He got angry and horsewhipped a bunch of heathen reprobates. Uh oh! Where did that come from??? oloroid

It isn't sin for us today to provide for the needs of our flesh. It's still a requirement for men to meet the needs of our families. EB and L&F, your wives and children need your leadership, your prayers, and your teaching, yes, but they also need your protection from evildoers in addition to the rent, clothes, and groceries.

The principles have been spelled out a hundred different ways here. Rather than acknowledge principles, a great deal of nitpicking the details has gone on. There is only one word for a person who doesn't want to acknowledge an inconvenient principle. There is only one word for a person who ducks behind a curtain of "chapter and verse only" (NT, by the way, if you please) when their hide is on the line.

What do you think of these examples?

My wife lived BY HERSELF in a drug dealer, homosexual neighborhood, for 3 years before we married. She was a devout, praying, fasting Apostolic Sister in Pastor Rooks' church (at the time they'd moved from Miami to Cooper City).
One night, she was witnessing to a teenage Haitian drug dealer at 1 a.m. (She had frequent prayer meetings with Haitians in the neighborhood and took those who wanted to, to her church). She was standing with him on the sidewalk in front of her home with a bright street lamp about 20 feet away between her home and the neighbor's. As she spoke to him, 2 men walked towards them, as she likes to say, "slithered" towards them. She felt danger and suddenly felt in the Holy Ghost to lift her arms and worship the Lord Jesus Christ. They gave her sidelong glances as she was doing this, exchanged some words with the Haitian boy, and then walked off across the street.

Abuelita, a sweet old time Apostolic Colombian who passed away a couple of years ago, had many dangerous situations. Once some armed men approached her to mug her and she rebuked them in Jesus name. Her daughter yelled, "Mom! Give them the purse!" She said "No!" and rebuked them and walked right on by.

Another Colombian Sister, (mother of a Pastor), with another Sister, were witnessing in the hill country of Columbia and an angry farmer released two bulls who charged the Sisters. One of the Sisters spun around, held out her Bible, and yelled, "In JESUS NAME!" The bulls froze and started walking backwards!

My wife and I live on faith and she completely understood this prior to our wedding. We have traveled all over America and have been in situations that would make your hair stand on end. All I can say to you, is that Jesus has always taken care of us. I pray Jesus will also take care of you when your firearms fail to stop the attackers.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com