@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.