[Morganite]

To your first paragraph above: I agree that Jesus said nothing about Roman religion or customs. I disagree with your conclusion as to why. Jesus plainly said that He was sent to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel". Israel had not yet rejected Him, and hence, He was not at that time dealing with Gentiles.

Secondly, if He had made any remarks against anything Roman, the Romans would have aborted the Church. We would not have even heard of it! Jesus did, however, severely criticize the Publicans, who were probably the most numerous religious order in that day. He called them snakes, and said their father was the devil. Not much toleraance there!

Re. paragraph 4: Am I wrong in feeling that this is directed at me? How do you know that I have not been called by the Holy Spirit to preach the Gospel? Does God only call priests of the Roman church?

Finally, if we feel that we cannot bless others, we are obligated to pray that God will grant repentance to them, and stand ready to provide guidance if they want it.

Ps. I don't scowl a lot.

GF: What you will find is that Jesus criticises Jews who do not live up to their religion. He is probably not disinterested in Roman religions, but he does not direct his followers to attack them. He sticks closely to his mission of fulfilling the old law and establishing the law of the gospel of Christ.

Although Jesus did say he was sent to the house of Israel, he was also the first Christian missionary to the Gentiles. Like the Sabbath day, it was meant o be a blessing not a burden to mankind.

If we learn nothing from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman we should learn that he was not intolerant to her faith, but encouraged her to set her life in order, which she did, and then became the second missionary to the Gentiles through her witness to her own villagers. That was the beginning of the Samaritan branch of the Christian Church.

What does that teach us? If nothing else, it shows us that hostility and intolerance is a poor missionary tool, and since Jesus did not use it, then we cannot use it and claim to be on his side or doing his will.

I cannot come to agreement with you as to what the Romans would have done if Jesus had criticised their gods. Romans were almost uniquely tolerant in matters of a religious nature, and with so many gods and temples among them they were used to some being favoured and some being. Romans did not look with disfavour on any religion, accepting that it was at least a matter for individual conscience.

Non-Sadduceean Palestinian Jews spoke loud and angrily against the Roman occupation, and the Zealots encouraged Jewish insurgents to make life hot for the Romans, but Rome did not quench or quell Judaism.

Since Publicans (tax gatherers) were an occupation rather than a rleigion, I will take it that you meant to write Pharisees.

M:)

[galveston]

I did indeed intend to write Pharisee. As to the Samaritan woman, Jesus did correct her. He told her that salvation was of the Jews, but went further and explained that those places of worship were no longer of any importance. God must be worshpped in spirit and in truth. She apparentlly accepted the corrections. More than can be said for many today!

[galveston]

GF: What you will find is that Jesus criticises Jews who do not live up to their religion. He is probably not disinterested in Roman religions, but he does not direct his followers to attack them. He sticks closely to his mission of fulfilling the old law and establishing the law of the gospel of Christ.

Although Jesus did say he was sent to the house of Israel, he was also the first Christian missionary to the Gentiles. Like the Sabbath day, it was meant o be a blessing not a burden to mankind.

If we learn nothing from Jesus' encounter with the Samaritan woman we should learn that he was not intolerant to her faith, but encouraged her to set her life in order, which she did, and then became the second missionary to the Gentiles through her witness to her own villagers. That was the beginning of the Samaritan branch of the Christian Church.

What does that teach us? If nothing else, it shows us that hostility and intolerance is a poor missionary tool, and since Jesus did not use it, then we cannot use it and claim to be on his side or doing his will.

I cannot come to agreement with you as to what the Romans would have done if Jesus had criticised their gods. Romans were almost uniquely tolerant in matters of a religious nature, and with so many gods and temples among them they were used to some being favoured and some being. Romans did not look with disfavour on any religion, accepting that it was at least a matter for individual conscience.

Non-Sadduceean Palestinian Jews spoke loud and angrily against the Roman occupation, and the Zealots encouraged Jewish insurgents to make life hot for the Romans, but Rome did not quench or quell Judaism.

Since Publicans (tax gatherers) were an occupation rather than a rleigion, I will take it that you meant to write Pharisees.

M:)

I must take exception to your statement that the Romans did not look with disfavor on any religion. Rome took draconian measures against Christians. It seems Christians would not worship the emperor, and that was a major no-no. No tolerance toward Christians there!

[Morganite]

I must take exception to your statement that the Romans did not look with disfavor on any religion. Rome took draconian measures against Christians. It seems Christians would not worship the emperor, and that was a major no-no. No tolerance toward Christians there!

Roman persecution of Christians was unknown at the time of Jesus' ministry. Remember we are speaking of Jesus' teaching during his mortal ministry. The persecutions began at a much later date. The following are the ten major persecutions of Christians during the Roman Empire:

#Nero (64 A.D.)
# Domitian (c.90-96)
# Trajan (98-117)
# Hadrian (117-138)
# Marcus Aurelius (161-181)
# Septimus Severus (202-211)
# Maximus the Thracian (235-251)
# Decius (249-251)
# Valerian (257-260)
# Diocletian / Galerius (303-311)

The death of Jesus is around 33 AD, so there was no persecution, and the Romans did not favour one religion over another uless they suspected it of being seditious, in which case it was barred and iots members treated as enemy insurgents and locked up wihtout due oprocess.

Although this might not be the only, or even primary, reason for toleration, it should be remembered that not all Roman soldiers were actually Italianate Romans. Men from many countries within the Roman Empire served in the ranks of its armies.

Roman tolerance did not extend to religions perceived as threats to public order within the empire. Cults such as Isis-worship were banned from time to time when their practice caused unrest.

Judaism was widespread throughout the empire, but its exclusive monotheism combined with a strong nationalist ideology in Judaea itself led to conflicts with, and ferocious revolts against, Roman authority - although these were bloodily repressed.

Christianity was sporadically persecuted throughout Roman history, primarily to maintain public order. Groups that met privately (whether religious sects, trade guilds or even local fire brigades!) were viewed with suspicion by Roman authorities, who suspected such groups of plotting subversion.

In those days, it was imperial policy to remove troops as far as possible from their country of origin in order to prevent local uprisings. A Roman soldier who, after several years of service in his native country had been promoted to the rank of centurion, was transferred to a foreign station where he was later assigned to a new garrison.

This way, the entire body of centurions of any one legion constituted a microcosm of the empire. The vast extent of the Roman colonies formed links between Persia and the Mediterranean and caused the diffusion of the Mithraic and other pagan religions into the Roman world, including Canaanite opaganism, etc.

The point of this is that in remarking the wickedness of religious people, Jesus confined his attention to those who were Jews, and those who came to be his disciples, but is never found to be castigating those practising any other religion.

This should provide us with an excellent example of how to set our own houses in order, look to our own hearts, and refrain from persecuting those who do not walk alongside us. I thoight I had made that plain in an earlier post.


M:)

[galveston]

Morganite, you are very well read and articulate, but we will never agree on the way we define persecution. You believe we must respect another's beliefs, even if we are convinced that it is wrong and leads to eternal loss. I believe that every Christian has the obligation to challenge that non-Christian to think about the claims of Christ. Delicately, and kindly, of course. To me, not to present the claims of Christ amounts to dereliction of duty. Now, will you tolerate me?

[Morganite]

Morganite, you are very well read and articulate, but we will never agree on the way we define persecution. You believe we must respect another's beliefs, even if we are convinced that it is wrong and leads to eternal loss. I believe that every Christian has the obligation to challenge that non-Christian to think about the claims of Christ. Delicately, and kindly, of course. To me, not to present the claims of Christ amounts to dereliction of duty. Now, will you tolerate me?

G, I have no problem tolerating you, but that does not mean that I agree with you on all points. I believe in the present disagreement that it hinges on whether Rome was persecuting Christians at the time that Jesus was alive and preaching. The Bible show that it was not.

I am in favour of delicacy an dkindness, and trust that you will not feel that I have been lacjking in those virtues when I have addressed what I believe are errors in your thinking and grasp of history etc. It is not personal, merely a rabbinical discussion by two rabbis [you and me] who do not share the same perspective on all issues - not uncommon in Christianity, as it is not in all faiths.

I understand your take on Christian responsibility and I do not argue with that in principle, but I also believe that every Christian has a divine responsibility to ensure that what they witness and challenge is true in the first place, and accurate in the second place, and, of even greater importance is that witnessing and challenging is done with the same broad generous love that Jesus had in him when he looked on the rich young man. Although the RYM rejected Jesus counsel, Jesus' response was not vituperative, but a sad andcontemplative observation to his disciples, equivalent to,

"Oh, dear. It is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom because they love their wealth more than they desire eternalife. Oh, dear me, alas and lack-a-day!"

It is essential that if we believe that we are speaking for Christ, that we speak as he spoke, and it is well if we do not invoke his example when he cleansed the temple. That is something he effected by himself, and there is no record in the scriptures that he gave his ministers authority to do the same.

What did he tell them to do when men rejected their proclamations? He told them to wipe off the dust of their feet, and that God would take care of what needed taking care of in God's time. God's ministers are not sent out to be the instruments of either his judgement or vengeance.

If we can't do what we do in Christ's way, then we should get ourselves some other employment or hobby.



M:)RGANITE

[galveston]

Well, I can agree with most of that, Morganite.

[DUKE-OF-URL]

In general, who are more tolerant of differing religeous views--Protestants or Catholics?

Tolerant? As a christian I believe the bible uncomprimized my catholic brother in law thinks it's a cult.

Excuse the spelling I'm tired

[Tessy777]

Personally, I don't think that it is FAIR to classify between catholics and protestants. I believe in absolute truth. I also believe in wisdom and being nice about absolute truth. I think you win people to Christ through love NOT condemnation. But hey, that is just me.

[Marily]

Being tolerant and religious differ from person to person and not from religion to religion, yet these to things doesn't mean much at the end if you are not saved, Cain was a religious man yet he killed his brother, anyone in the world can be tolerant which won't count much at the end