Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

Merrill · Jun 19, 2024

Dale said:
Merrill,

In post #132 I posed a simple question for you:

<< Was Jesus wrong to tell the leper to show himself to the priest? >>

In your reply, #133, you go off on a tangent about socializing with lepers but never answer the crucial question. If we take your hostility to regulations to its logical conclusion, Jesus must have been wrong to tell the lepers to show themselves to the priest, in accord with OT law.

I believe that Jesus did the right thing and the Gospels recorded it correctly. This a straightforward conclusion. Can you agree?

I am not the one putting a spin on the Gospel for political or ideological purposes here

Leviticus 13:9-33 outlines the criteria by which the priests determine leprosy and banish those afflicted with the disease from society. But Leviticus 14 outlines the process by which such a person is healed, and one commentator points out, to the question "did Jesus break the law by touching the leper"?:

"By the time of Jesus’ day, the leprosy cleansing ritual of Leviticus 14 had never been instituted because God had not yet provided a cure for the disease.

Likewise, in the case of sin, a solution had not yet appeared either. It turns out both awaited the arrival of the Messiah. It is key to note that the similarities of leprosy and sin led rabbis to conclude that God intended to associate the healing of leprosy with the arrival of the Messiah. Jewish Rabbis concluded that the first person to heal a leper would be the Messiah Himself."

Sending the leper back to see the priest was NOT evidence that Jesus was putting himself under the authority of Rabbis. Likewise, we see in other places in the Gospel that both He and His followers "associated" with lepers (such people were not cast away)

We see in the episode involving the cleansing of the Temple that Jesus accuses the temple authorities of theft, dishonesty, etc. (Mark 12:40 "They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation")

Do you think Jesus should have bowed to the authority of the priests and gone along with the grift, hypocrisy, money-changing, whatever, that was going on in the Temple? Those priests absolutely believed they were "following the law"

Dale · Jun 19, 2024

Fervent said:
Extremism? I suppose one might say that, but it's simply a fact. Earthly kingdoms govern by using violence, whether they are ostensibly religious or not. Though I certainly never suggested that entangling religion and government solved the problem, simply that there's no way to create a neat demarcation between state powers and religious powers. Governing philosophy and theology are bound to have quite a bit of intersection, and at the end of the day every individual has to decide where their loyalty lies. God or government.

You seem somewhat baffled by my observation that saying that governments are demonic leads to extremism. My first thought when you said that is that it sounds like what the Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to serve in the military, so in that sense they are pacifists. I’m not sure that other pacifists want them. It’s not that they abhor violence any more than anyone else does. The JW organization teaches that governments are satanic, so no government is worth defending. Jehovah’s Witnesses will not say the Pledge of Allegiance, in the US. Why? Because the government is satanic. It’s a useless and corrosive belief. I urge you to stay away from it. I knew this without looking it up, but if you need evidence, try this.

Google Search:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in government?

“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are the kingdom's representatives on earth. They also believe that they must remain separate from human governments, which they consider to be controlled by Satan.”

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jun 21, 2024

Dale said:
You seem somewhat baffled by my observation that saying that governments are demonic leads to extremism. My first thought when you said that is that it sounds like what the Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to serve in the military, so in that sense they are pacifists. I’m not sure that other pacifists want them. It’s not that they abhor violence any more than anyone else does. The JW organization teaches that governments are satanic, so no government is worth defending. Jehovah’s Witnesses will not say the Pledge of Allegiance, in the US. Why? Because the government is satanic. It’s a useless and corrosive belief. I urge you to stay away from it. I knew this without looking it up, but if you need evidence, try this.

Google Search:
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in government?

“Jehovah's Witnesses believe that they are the kingdom's representatives on earth. They also believe that they must remain separate from human governments, which they consider to be controlled by Satan.”

So we should be more loyal to the US Government than to God or our Churches?

Dale · Jun 22, 2024

Fervent said:
Extremism? I suppose one might say that, but it's simply a fact. Earthly kingdoms govern by using violence, whether they are ostensibly religious or not. Though I certainly never suggested that entangling religion and government solved the problem, simply that there's no way to create a neat demarcation between state powers and religious powers. Governing philosophy and theology are bound to have quite a bit of intersection, and at the end of the day every individual has to decide where their loyalty lies. God or government.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
So we should be more loyal to the US Government than to God or our Churches?

Jesus does not tell us to choose between God and government. He tells us to choose between God and money.

[Jesus says,} “No-one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one
and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
Matthew 6:24 NIV

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jun 22, 2024

Dale said:
Jesus does not tell us to choose between God and government. He tells us to choose between God and money.

[Jesus says,} “No-one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one
and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
Matthew 6:24 NIV

Is loyalty to the US government loyalty to God?

Dale · Jun 22, 2024

Merrill said:
I am not the one putting a spin on the Gospel for political or ideological purposes here

Leviticus 13:9-33 outlines the criteria by which the priests determine leprosy and banish those afflicted with the disease from society. But Leviticus 14 outlines the process by which such a person is healed, and one commentator points out, to the question "did Jesus break the law by touching the leper"?:

"By the time of Jesus’ day, the leprosy cleansing ritual of Leviticus 14 had never been instituted because God had not yet provided a cure for the disease.

Likewise, in the case of sin, a solution had not yet appeared either. It turns out both awaited the arrival of the Messiah. It is key to note that the similarities of leprosy and sin led rabbis to conclude that God intended to associate the healing of leprosy with the arrival of the Messiah. Jewish Rabbis concluded that the first person to heal a leper would be the Messiah Himself."

Sending the leper back to see the priest was NOT evidence that Jesus was putting himself under the authority of Rabbis. Likewise, we see in other places in the Gospel that both He and His followers "associated" with lepers (such people were not cast away)

We see in the episode involving the cleansing of the Temple that Jesus accuses the temple authorities of theft, dishonesty, etc. (Mark 12:40 "They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation")

Do you think Jesus should have bowed to the authority of the priests and gone along with the grift, hypocrisy, money-changing, whatever, that was going on in the Temple? Those priests absolutely believed they were "following the law"

Merrill: << "By the time of Jesus’ day, the leprosy cleansing ritual of Leviticus 14 had never been instituted because God had not yet provided a cure for the disease.

Likewise, in the case of sin, a solution had not yet appeared either. It turns out both awaited the arrival of the Messiah. It is key to note that the similarities of leprosy and sin led rabbis to conclude that God intended to associate the healing of leprosy with the arrival of the Messiah. Jewish Rabbis concluded that the first person to heal a leper would be the Messiah Himself." >>

This isn’t true. The prophet Elisha heals the foreign general Naaman, from the country of Aram, by telling him to dip into the Jordan River in II Kings Chapter 5. Elisha probably healed other people as well.

Leprosy as defined by modern doctors is not the same as “leprosy” as used in the Bible. Leprosy in the Bible often refers to other skin diseases. Also, while the Israelites could not cure leprosy, an individual could always have a remission.

Dale · Jun 22, 2024

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Is loyalty to the US government loyalty to God?

Did you read the title to this thread? "Separation of Church and State -- Answering Critics." I advocate separation of church and state.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jun 22, 2024

Dale said:
Did you read the title to this thread? "Separation of Church and State -- Answering Critics." I advocate separation of church and state.

Did you read my question? Is loyalty to the USA and it's government, loyalty to God?

Fervent · Jun 22, 2024

Dale said:
Jesus does not tell us to choose between God and government. He tells us to choose between God and money.

[Jesus says,} “No-one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one
and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”
Matthew 6:24 NIV

Jesus said we must put God before all else, even family:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Luke 14:26

If our loyalty to Christ is supposed to exceed our loyalty to our own families to the point that our love for them looks like hatred compared to our love for Christ, then surely loyalty to Christ must be put before any considerations for government.

lifepsyop · Jun 26, 2024

Dale said:
Did you read the title to this thread? "Separation of Church and State -- Answering Critics." I advocate separation of church and state.

Do you believe the 'separation of church and state' is the ultimate social organization for a Christian living temporally on earth?

Is modernity the historical high-point of Christianity because of the acceptance of pluralistic liberal democracy and the separation of church and state? Are Christians now living in a more pure or enlightened state because of it? Have they attained a genuine state of spiritual liberty?

Is the principle of 'separation of church and state' something worth going to war, shedding blood, and dying over?

Dale · Jun 26, 2024

Merrill said:
I am not the one putting a spin on the Gospel for political or ideological purposes here

Leviticus 13:9-33 outlines the criteria by which the priests determine leprosy and banish those afflicted with the disease from society. But Leviticus 14 outlines the process by which such a person is healed, and one commentator points out, to the question "did Jesus break the law by touching the leper"?:

"By the time of Jesus’ day, the leprosy cleansing ritual of Leviticus 14 had never been instituted because God had not yet provided a cure for the disease.

Likewise, in the case of sin, a solution had not yet appeared either. It turns out both awaited the arrival of the Messiah. It is key to note that the similarities of leprosy and sin led rabbis to conclude that God intended to associate the healing of leprosy with the arrival of the Messiah. Jewish Rabbis concluded that the first person to heal a leper would be the Messiah Himself."

Sending the leper back to see the priest was NOT evidence that Jesus was putting himself under the authority of Rabbis. Likewise, we see in other places in the Gospel that both He and His followers "associated" with lepers (such people were not cast away)

We see in the episode involving the cleansing of the Temple that Jesus accuses the temple authorities of theft, dishonesty, etc. (Mark 12:40 "They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation")

Do you think Jesus should have bowed to the authority of the priests and gone along with the grift, hypocrisy, money-changing, whatever, that was going on in the Temple? Those priests absolutely believed they were "following the law"

Merrill: << Do you think Jesus should have bowed to the authority of the priests and gone along with the grift, hypocrisy, money-changing, whatever, that was going on in the Temple? Those priests absolutely believed they were "following the law" >>

Jesus did go to Jerusalem at Passover to have the Temple priests sacrifice the Paschal lamb according to custom and OT law. If Jesus had sacrificed the Paschal lamb Himself, he would have had no need to go to Jerusalem with the disciples, he could have done it anywhere.

I’m not sure that following the recognized procedure is “bowing to the authority of the priests” as you put it. Jesus did acknowledge that the priests have a role to play. Jesus does tell us that God dwells in the Temple, even when he criticizes the religious leaders of the day.

Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the
priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?
Matthew 12:5 NIV

You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means
nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by
his oath.’
You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that
makes the gift sacred?
Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by
everything on it.
And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one
who dwells in it.
Matthew 23:18-21 NIV

Merrill: << I am not the one putting a spin on the Gospel for political or ideological purposes here >>

Yes you are. Jesus does not share your obsession with defying authority.

Dale · Jun 26, 2024

lifepsyop said:
Do you believe the 'separation of church and state' is the ultimate social organization for a Christian living temporally on earth?

Is modernity the historical high-point of Christianity because of the acceptance of pluralistic liberal democracy and the separation of church and state? Are Christians now living in a more pure or enlightened state because of it? Have they attained a genuine state of spiritual liberty?

Is the principle of 'separation of church and state' something worth going to war, shedding blood, and dying over?

Lifepsy: << Do you believe the 'separation of church and state' is the ultimate social organization for a Christian living temporally on earth? >>

Where did Jesus advocate union of church and state? Jesus lived under a pagan emperor and a pagan governor. Did He ever say that was a hindrance to salvation? I’m sure it didn’t help, but Jesus put the emphasis on pointing to what the believer can do to put themselves in harmony with God.

Lifepsy: << Is the principle of 'separation of church and state' something worth going to war, shedding blood, and dying over? >>

Many Americans have thought so.

Have you ever read one page of religious history? Union of church and state has given the human race bloodshed, bloodshead and more bloodshed. If you advocate union of church and state then that is what you are advocating.

Ignatius the Kiwi · Jun 26, 2024

Dale said:
Have you ever read one page of religious history? Union of church and state has given the human race bloodshed, bloodshead and more bloodshed. If you advocate union of church and state then that is what you are advocating.

Actually it's the state and human nature that have lead to bloodshed. If you think religion is uniquely responsible for blood letting, then you conveniently ignore the blood shed by secular regimes of the last century.

WW1, WW2, the wars for Democracy the USA has started. Compared to the horrors of the 21st century the blood Christendom has spilt was only a trickle.

lifepsyop · Jun 27, 2024

Dale said:
Lifepsy: << Do you believe the 'separation of church and state' is the ultimate social organization for a Christian living temporally on earth? >>

Where did Jesus advocate union of church and state? Jesus lived under a pagan emperor and a pagan governor. Did He ever say that was a hindrance to salvation? I’m sure it didn’t help, but Jesus put the emphasis on pointing to what the believer can do to put themselves in harmony with God.

Lifepsy: << Is the principle of 'separation of church and state' something worth going to war, shedding blood, and dying over? >>

Many Americans have thought so.

Have you ever read one page of religious history? Union of church and state has given the human race bloodshed, bloodshead and more bloodshed. If you advocate union of church and state then that is what you are advocating.

There's some interesting tension in your response.

On the one hand, you rightly say Christians are supposed to live in harmony with God under whatever political circumstances they find themselves in.

On the other hand, you imply that it was a good thing to wage violent revolution against the established governments in order to institute democracy and constitutional republics.

These two worldviews contradict each other heavily. Yet this seems to be a pattern among American Christians: "Stay detached politically and simply share the Gospel... unless sacred liberal democracy is threatened, then draw your guns and prepare for righteous bloodshed."

Merrill · Jun 27, 2024

Dale said:
Merrill: << Do you think Jesus should have bowed to the authority of the priests and gone along with the grift, hypocrisy, money-changing, whatever, that was going on in the Temple? Those priests absolutely believed they were "following the law" >>

Jesus did go to Jerusalem at Passover to have the Temple priests sacrifice the Paschal lamb according to custom and OT law. If Jesus had sacrificed the Paschal lamb Himself, he would have had no need to go to Jerusalem with the disciples, he could have done it anywhere.

I’m not sure that following the recognized procedure is “bowing to the authority of the priests” as you put it. Jesus did acknowledge that the priests have a role to play. Jesus does tell us that God dwells in the Temple, even when he criticizes the religious leaders of the day.

Or haven’t you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the
priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent?
Matthew 12:5 NIV

You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means
nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by
his oath.’
You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that
makes the gift sacred?
Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by
everything on it.
And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one
who dwells in it.
Matthew 23:18-21 NIV

Merrill: << I am not the one putting a spin on the Gospel for political or ideological purposes here >>

Yes you are. Jesus does not share your obsession with defying authority.

Do you think Jesus would have supported and condoned

1. Roman authorities shutting down the temples because of a disease outbreak?
2. Rounding up Jewish kids and sending them to Roman schools?

Your assertion that Jesus was a guy that simply "did as he was told", and "didn't cause trouble" is at odds with the entire Gospel

Your argument is put forth to support the idea that the US government, run by a far-left political party, should be obeyed, regardless of conscience, or what the Bible, or even the Constitution says, "because Jesus respected the power and authority of priests", and "government officials are just like priests"

which leads to arguments like "it is OK for health officials and doctors to castrate little kids (gender re-assignment surgery for minors, which the Biden administration supports) because as Christians, we should not object to authority"

that is the political and ideological spin

I think you need to decide what master you serve

frienden thalord · Jun 27, 2024

Merrill said:
I am not the one putting a spin on the Gospel for political or ideological purposes here

Leviticus 13:9-33 outlines the criteria by which the priests determine leprosy and banish those afflicted with the disease from society. But Leviticus 14 outlines the process by which such a person is healed, and one commentator points out, to the question "did Jesus break the law by touching the leper"?:

"By the time of Jesus’ day, the leprosy cleansing ritual of Leviticus 14 had never been instituted because God had not yet provided a cure for the disease.

Likewise, in the case of sin, a solution had not yet appeared either. It turns out both awaited the arrival of the Messiah. It is key to note that the similarities of leprosy and sin led rabbis to conclude that God intended to associate the healing of leprosy with the arrival of the Messiah. Jewish Rabbis concluded that the first person to heal a leper would be the Messiah Himself."

Sending the leper back to see the priest was NOT evidence that Jesus was putting himself under the authority of Rabbis. Likewise, we see in other places in the Gospel that both He and His followers "associated" with lepers (such people were not cast away)

We see in the episode involving the cleansing of the Temple that Jesus accuses the temple authorities of theft, dishonesty, etc. (Mark 12:40 "They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation")

Do you think Jesus should have bowed to the authority of the priests and gone along with the grift, hypocrisy, money-changing, whatever, that was going on in the Temple? Those priests absolutely believed they were "following the law"

when you say heal a leper , lets not forget about naman the leper .
course the man didnt lay hands on him but did tell him to go to the jordan .
and to answer your question about should JESUS have bowed to the authority of the priests
Well them priests were not even BOWED before HE who had given them authority in the first place .
THEY were NOT serving GOD at all . JESUS was perfect and righteous as he held them whips in one hand
and had a whole lot of accusations against them in the other .
Do be encouraged my friend .

lifepsyop · Jun 28, 2024

Merrill said:
Do you think Jesus would have supported and condoned
...
Rounding up Jewish kids and sending them to Roman schools?

This is one of the major sins of American Christianity. The radical liberalizing of the education system has been well known for generations, yet most churches continue to feed their kids into it... and then act surprised when nobody believes in or follows the God of the Bible anymore.

A pastor who I respect very much, told me to my face that it doesn't matter how bad schools are (and how hostile the curriculum to a Biblical worldview) for believers' kids because it's a chance for them to witness to other students... which is antithetical to what the Apostles instructed... to carefully raise up your children in Godliness before 'feeding them meat' and sending some of them out into the deceitful world.

I think this is one major point where always individual-focused American Evangelism breaks down and dissolves into the secular realm.

frienden thalord · Jun 28, 2024

lifepsyop said:
This is one of the major sins of American Christianity. The radical liberalizing of the education system has been well known for generations, yet most churches continue to feed their kids into it... and then act surprised when nobody believes in or follows the God of the Bible anymore.

A pastor who I respect very much, told me to my face that it doesn't matter how bad schools are (and how hostile the curriculum to a Biblical worldview) for believers' kids because it's a chance for them to witness to other students... which is antithetical to what the Apostles instructed... to carefully raise up your children in Godliness before 'feeding them meat' and sending some of them out into the deceitful world.

I think this is one major point where always individual-focused American Evangelism breaks down and dissolves into the secular realm.

Ask that pastor what he means by evanglizing as well .
Todays version of evangelism , IT DONT POINT TO JESUS THE CHRIST
IT POINTS TO LETS ALL FIND COMMON GROUND , GET ALONG and etc . that be a fact my friend .
In fact this has led to some even now coming against those who dare to remind others about the dire need to BELIEVE ON JESUS the CHRIST
This gen has tanked my friend .

Dale · Jun 28, 2024

Merrill said:
Do you think Jesus would have supported and condoned

1. Roman authorities shutting down the temples because of a disease outbreak?
2. Rounding up Jewish kids and sending them to Roman schools?

Your assertion that Jesus was a guy that simply "did as he was told", and "didn't cause trouble" is at odds with the entire Gospel

Your argument is put forth to support the idea that the US government, run by a far-left political party, should be obeyed, regardless of conscience, or what the Bible, or even the Constitution says, "because Jesus respected the power and authority of priests", and "government officials are just like priests"

which leads to arguments like "it is OK for health officials and doctors to castrate little kids (gender re-assignment surgery for minors, which the Biden administration supports) because as Christians, we should not object to authority"

that is the political and ideological spin

I think you need to decide what master you serve

Merrill: << Your assertion that Jesus was a guy that simply "did as he was told", and "didn't cause trouble" is at odds with the entire Gospel >>

Your two quotes are fiction. I said nothing of the sort.

Merrill: << Your argument is put forth to support the idea that the US government, run by a far-left political party, should be obeyed … >>

I said nothing about political parties and nothing about obeying the government. That is a different topic.

Merrill: << "because Jesus respected the power and authority of priests", and "government officials are just like priests" >>

Again, your two quotes are fiction. I did not say these things.

Merrill: << which leads to arguments like "it is OK for health officials and doctors to castrate little kids (gender re-assignment surgery for minors, which the Biden administration supports) because as Christians, we should not object to authority" >>

I do not believe there is such a thing as a transgender. Again, you are changing the subject.

Dale · Jun 28, 2024

Merrill said:
Do you think Jesus would have supported and condoned

1. Roman authorities shutting down the temples because of a disease outbreak?
2. Rounding up Jewish kids and sending them to Roman schools?

Your assertion that Jesus was a guy that simply "did as he was told", and "didn't cause trouble" is at odds with the entire Gospel

Your argument is put forth to support the idea that the US government, run by a far-left political party, should be obeyed, regardless of conscience, or what the Bible, or even the Constitution says, "because Jesus respected the power and authority of priests", and "government officials are just like priests"

which leads to arguments like "it is OK for health officials and doctors to castrate little kids (gender re-assignment surgery for minors, which the Biden administration supports) because as Christians, we should not object to authority"

that is the political and ideological spin

I think you need to decide what master you serve

Merrill,

Take a look at this passage.

On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise him, he
was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he
had been conceived.
When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male
is to be consecrated to the Lord”),
and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the
Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons”.
Luke 2:21-24 NIV

Jesus was circumcised at the Temple. Why do you think Luke includes this in his narrative if the whole point of the ministry of Jesus is to defy authority?

Separation of Church and State – Answering Critics

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Dissident

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads