Egregoros

> the commandment is love as Christ loved. if you think Christ only loved people who werent sinners youre reading a different bible.

Yes, the word in question is agapate a form of agape, the love God has for us. And Christ is God.

But God's "love" drowned the world, destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and killed all but one family in Jericho. It allowed the Israelis of the southern kingdom to be dragged off to Babylon in chains and the temple to be destroyed when they abandoned him for other gods. And when he sent his son to guide them back to worshiping him properly and they killed him he allowed the second temple to be destroyed, Jerusalem to be leveled, most of the jews in Judah killed and the remainder scattered to the four winds.

I'm not sure his definition of "love" matches yours.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper Jesus isnt just the same as YHVH, YHVH is Jesus. people reap the punishment of their own misdeeds, but never does that mean God does not love them or does not want them to eventually return to Him. God said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, yet you hate your enemies. you know what He also said?

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
Matthew 25:40-45

All of you are saying "I will not take the stranger in". you condemn the Jews for what they did to Christ their brother but when you do not help the least among you, you do the same to Jesus.

perhaps even worse, some among you, admitted atheists and bound for a terrible afterlife, say "I will take the stranger in solely if he is white". you know what Jesus said? He said your neighbor, who you should love as yourself, is more a samaritan (who had enmity with the jews) than a jewish priest as long as he shows you compassion. and paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus.

plainly stated the jews of jesuss time were xenophobes, but jesus was not xenophobic. he loved the stranger. do you?

> Jesus isnt just the same as YHVH, YHVH is Jesus.

I'm an American, I don't speak Hebrew. The English word is Jehovah.

> God said to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

He said that was what the law required of us. He knew we couldn't do it.

> yet you hate your enemies.

On those rare occasion where I do it's a sin which can be forgiven.

> All of you are saying "I will not take the stranger in".

I will give the stranger of my excess in the manner I judge best when my own are taken care of, as 1 Timothy 5:8 says I should:

"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

My home and land are not excess.

> you condemn the Jews for what they did to Christ their brother but when you do not help the least among you, you do the same to Jesus.

I'm perfectly willing to provide charity to the "least among us". But foreign invaders are not "among us". And they can receive my charity in the own lands.

> you know what Jesus said? He said your neighbor, who you should love as yourself, is more a samaritan (who had enmity with the jews) than a jewish priest as long as he shows you compassion.

And you deliberately misconstrue the clear meaning of the text.

> and paul said there is neither Jew nor Greek, for all are one in Christ Jesus.

He also said there is neither male nor female in Christ, so I guess all the Christians died out in the first century, huh? Again, you misstate the clear meaning of the text.

> he loved the stranger. do you?

I'm willing to give of my excess to the stranger, just as the good Samaritan did. I'm not willing to take him into my home or homeland. That doesn't give him what's best for him.

@James_Dixon @ChristiJunior @Goalkeeper

>The English word is Jehovah.

Jehovah wasnt how the name is pronounced though. YHVH is a direct latinization of the ineffable name. we dont know the vowels.

>He said that was what the law required of us. He knew we couldn't do it.

the sermon on the mount wasnt a mere expounding of the existing law, it was a summation of jesus's teachings which radically reformed the law. jesus never spoke empty words, when you say of all his moral precepts "he knew we couldnt follow his words" you are saying his teachings were meant for an audience of no one. this is a protestant invention, that jesus is solely meant to be "believed" and not meant to be actually followed. love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you means exactly that.

>I will give the stranger of my excess in the manner I judge best when my own are taken care of, as 1 Timothy 5:8 says I should:
"But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

first off, these are the words of paul, not jesus, jesus said to take the stranger in and this doesnt abrogate jesus. paul is just saying you are first responsible for your own, which was historically interpreted not in the manner of a nuclear family home, but to mean your distant relations and friends as well, provided they were believers.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/5-8.htm

"The words "his own," refer to those who are naturally dependent on him, whether living in his own immediate family or not. There may be many distant relatives naturally dependent on our aid, besides those who live in our own house"

"The circle of those for whose support and sustenance a Christian was responsible is here enlarged: not merely is the fairly prosperous man who professes to love Christ, bound to do his best for his nearest relations, such as his mother and grandmother, but St. Paul says 'he must assist those of his own house,' in which term relatives who are much more distant are included, and even dependents connected with the family who had fallen into poverty and distress."

theres nothing objectionable about this, its your interpretation of it which abrogates christ which is objectionable:

>My home and land are not excess.

you are interpreting your entire country as the same as your own household, which is an error. God in the old testament told the israelites to welcome strangers. “the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” Leviticus 19:34
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/leviticus/19-34.htm I would read the entire commentary on this verse if I were you.

jesus's words were similarly clear: take in the stranger. that means into your own home if necessary, and when I have my own home I will take in strangers if I have the room. I promise you this.

>I'm perfectly willing to provide charity to the "least among us". But foreign invaders are not "among us". And they can receive my charity in the own lands.

immigrants aren't invaders, this is dehumanizing language. most immigration violation in the US is overstaying a legal welcome. the meaning of the stranger among you hasnt changed since Leviticus. do you give charity to the needy in other countries? I have.

>He also said there is neither male nor female in Christ, so I guess all the Christians died out in the first century, huh?

this is a sophistic imitation of reductio ad absurdum. paul meant that jewish and greek believers were equal, equal in Gods promise and equal in the church, so its only logical that you should also treat Jew and Greek alike in friendship, and likewise you yourself should not have preferences for Jew or Greek, for Israelite and stranger, for authorized and unauthorized immigrant, provided the person has shown you no unfriendliness.

>I'm willing to give of my excess to the stranger, just as the good Samaritan did. I'm not willing to take him into my home or homeland. That doesn't give him what's best for him.

giving in excess is good, not taking refugees into your "homeland" is unbiblical. its your opinion that its not what's best for him, its Gods opinion that the needy ought to be provided for when they entreat you.

> Jehovah wasnt how the name is pronounced though. YHVH is a direct latinization of the ineffable name. we dont know the vowels.

Exactly, we have no idea how it was pronounced. And as I said, I don't speak Hebrew. The English word is Jehovah.

> when you say of all his moral precepts "he knew we couldnt follow his words" you are saying his teachings were meant for an audience of no one.

If you're going to lie about what I'm saying this is going to be short conversation.

> first off, these are the words of paul, not jesus

2 Timothy 3:16
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

> paul is just saying you are first responsible for your own, which was historically interpreted not in the manner of a nuclear family home, but to mean your distant relations and friends as well, provided they were believers.

Which is exactly what I said.

> its your interpretation of it which abrogates christ which is objectionable:

Again with the christ. My interpretation of it is correct.

> you are interpreting your entire country as the same as your own household, which is an error.

You just said the verse didn't refer to only my own household but to my extended kin. Thus, not in error.

> I would read the entire commentary on this verse if I were you.

Yes, you would.

> jesus's words were similarly clear: take in the stranger. that means into your own home if necessary, and when I have my own home I will take in strangers if I have the room. I promise you this.

Except he never says that.

> immigrants aren't invaders,

Yes, they are. This has been undeniably demonstrated over the past 60 years.

> this is dehumanizing language.

Too fucking bad.

> do you give charity to the needy in other countries? I have.

I've never had enough for more than my own kin.

> this is a sophistic imitation of reductio ad absurdum.

Which is perfectly appropriate because your usage of the incomplete verse is absurd.

> paul meant that jewish and greek believers were equal, equal in Gods promise and equal in the church,

Which is not what you're saying as you proceed to demonstrate.

> and likewise you yourself should not have preferences for Jew or Greek, for Israelite and stranger, for authorized and unauthorized immigrant, provided the person has shown you no unfriendliness.

See what I mean.

> giving in excess is good, not taking refugees into your "homeland" is ?unbiblical.

And again you lie.

> its Gods opinion that the needy ought to be provided for when they entreat you.

The needy you're talking about are lying thieves. God opines accordingly.