Jesus says no to war!

[IamBill]

..and, that is what is at the heart of this problem.

People want to pick and choose from the old covenant what they want to follow and what they don't.

That is why we need to go by the NEW, and leave the old to those whom were under it.

peaceandlove,

janet

Very Very interesting Janet - I guess I have to repost the response to the questions noone would answer - it was OT BTW
******************
post #684
Janet,

well the only verse that I think even remotely applies to the context of this topic is De 19:10 -- as far as "Innocence", I think we are just as well off to us a dictionary as to "what it is" or "who they are" (however you put it) vs doing a "word search" in the Bible.

IN CONTEXT -
19:2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.
19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:(v4-5 manslaughter- accident)

19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. (v6 Vengeance)

__________________
19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: 10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
____________________

19:11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:(MURDER)

19:12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.
13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

Word searches are not a good idea

[Brother Mark]

How many of you folks that are pacifist are also universalist? Do you believe all men will eventually be saved?

How many of you believe man will get a chance for salvation after he dies?

[jewel4Christ]

and he chose to kill himself so it was no accident or stray bullet that got him
he did it

he didnt kill an enemy with the holy spirit.

my point is when do you ever see spirit on spirit violence.

like what many of you are saying you see today


lol i just had to laugh at spirit on spirit violence

Exactly...they are only looking at this from a viewpoint, that the usa is the only nation that has christians.....

They seem to forget that their "view" on this demands that other nations also are supposed to have christians, and when christians are killing christians, there is something very wrong with that type of theology.

I don't think they think this through clear enough......

peaceandlove,

janet

[Brother Mark]

They seem to forget that their "view" on this demands that other nations also are supposed to have christians, and when christians are killing christians, there is something very wrong with that type of theology.

Not the theology. It means one side or possibly both are deceived. Doesn't mean the war or all war is wrong.

Besides, we know that God would not order sin and he did order war.

Janet, are you a universalist? Do you believe that all men will eventually be saved?

[Slug1]

God's wrath is being said to be through the governments of men, and I don't agree with that.

You really need to read Romans 13:4 cause that is exactly what the scripture means. The "sword" or Ministers of God or better known as soldiers and police forces are His avengers to execute "wrath" on those who would do evil.

[jewel4Christ]

I am sorry Bill...when I read this, I did not understand the point you were trying to make, and I still don't..and, I got busy with the others, and forgot about it...Could I ask you what it is you are trying to show?

Thanks...

peaceandlove,

janet

Quote:
Originally Posted by jewel4Christ
..and, that is what is at the heart of this problem.

People want to pick and choose from the old covenant what they want to follow and what they don't.

That is why we need to go by the NEW, and leave the old to those whom were under it.

peaceandlove,

janet

Very Very interesting Janet - I guess I have to repost the response to the questions noone would answer - it was OT BTW
******************
post #684
Janet,

well the only verse that I think even remotely applies to the context of this topic is De 19:10 -- as far as "Innocence", I think we are just as well off to us a dictionary as to "what it is" or "who they are" (however you put it) vs doing a "word search" in the Bible.

IN CONTEXT -
19:2 Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it. 3 Thou shalt prepare thee a way, and divide the coasts of thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee to inherit, into three parts, that every slayer may flee thither.
19:4 And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbour ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past;
5 As when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of those cities, and live:(v4-5 manslaughter- accident)

19:6 Lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. (v6 Vengeance)

__________________
19:9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: 10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.
____________________

19:11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:(MURDER)

19:12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.
13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

Word searches are not a good idea


I am not getting the point.

peaceandlove,

janet

[Slug1]

no spin dude -- paul was doing what he was told to do

if a cop comes to my house and says come with me -- i go with him , i dont refuse that would be going against the law --------- thats not me utilizing the police

utilizing soldiers is like saying -- paul told soldiers to protect him,

christ had soldiers take him from place to place before he was crufied -- does that show christ as utilizing soldiers ? -- or just being under their authority.

The difference is if you had called the police... just like Paul sent the child to the commander.

[jewel4Christ]

Just so you know Janet, I will not let it lay. You say war is a result of lusting, I agree. But that does not mean lust is occurring on both sides. The point is a good one. God ordered war. Was he lusting? No. Why? Because war can be just for one side.



Sure he did in Rev. Either way, if war is the result of lusting, it has always been the result of lusting, meaning God lusted when he went to war. We know that's wrong. Therefor, war is not always entered into because of lust. However, war always has it's foundations in lust. One side lusts and attacks. God commands the blood to be avenged.



One day.



I don't. Why make out GOd to be something he's not? Jesus and God are identical. They are the same in character. God commanded war, and Jesus will lead an army. He did it in the OT with Joshua and he will do it again.

So, was God filled with lust when he commanded war to occur?

The old covenant cases were not WAR.

Not war through lust.

They were done through the purpose of God at that specific time.

Of course God did not lust.

You are trying to make old covenant theology to be the same as new covenant theology.

Show me where the old covenant cases were WAR...built through lust.

peaceandlove,

janet

[fewarechosen]

The difference is if you had called the police... just like Paul sent the child to the commander.

ok for further clarification its more like this

i find out a murder is being plotted

i call the police to tell them

( that being my civil duty and all)

then the police come to talk to me, and take me away to station

i think you are making it sound like paul was scared and thought he needed soldiers - and to me thats just wayyyyy off base

[IamBill]

Here they are Peter, and actually, I would like it if everyone gave their interpretation on whom these "innocents" are in these verses..thanks..

peaceandlove,

janet

Someone whom denies that killing innocents is not sin, has either not yet had God convict them of it or they are in open rebellion against the truth of the matter..for it is plainly written that God hates it, and that is an abomination to Him.

Even from the beginning, it was sin...and, I am going to provide sufficient evidence to prove so.

Ex 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

De 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.

De 27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

2 kings 21:16 Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2 kings 24:4
And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon.

(of course this means, without repentance of it.)

prov 6

12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. 13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; 14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth F20 discord. 15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. 16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud F21 look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.



REMEMBER ALL these verses that noone was answering your questions too

[Brother Mark]

The old covenant cases were not WAR.

Not war through lust.

They were done through the purpose of God at that specific time.

Of course God did not lust.

You are trying to make old covenant theology to be the same as new covenant theology.

Show me where the old covenant cases were WAR...built through lust.

peaceandlove,

janet

They aren't and that's the point. It is possible to war without lust. Therefor, one can go to war and not sin. God showed us that in the OT. If it's possible to war then without lust, it's possible to war now without lust. There will be a war again in Rev. without lust.

Well, without lust on one side. The other side will be filled with lust.

Are you a universalist?

[jewel4Christ]

Not the theology. It means one side or possibly both are deceived. Doesn't mean the war or all war is wrong.

Besides, we know that God would not order sin and he did order war.

Janet, are you a universalist? Do you believe that all men will eventually be saved?

You are wrong. God did not order war, in that christiains could be fighting christians. This is what you are not getting.

God had a purpose at that time. Your theology demands that ALL christians submit to their particlular government..which would mean that christians must fight other christians, and it is as far from the truth as one can go.

Deal with the realities of what you are saying.

Do you believe that all governments from all nations are held to the same rule that you ONLY apply to the usa? God is the God of all nations my friend, and brother.

When the time comes that men whom are christians are called to kill other chirstians, I hope Jesus intervenes, and puts a stop to the madness of men.

peaceandlove,

janet

[Brother Mark]

Someone whom denies that killing innocents is not sin, has either not yet had God convict them of it or they are in open rebellion against the truth of the matter..for it is plainly written that God hates it, and that is an abomination to Him.

Even from the beginning, it was sin...and, I am going to provide sufficient evidence to prove so.

Ex 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

De 19:10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.

De 27:25 Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say, Amen.

2 kings 21:16 Moreover Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another; beside his sin wherewith he made Judah to sin, in doing that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2 kings 24:4
And also for the innocent blood that he shed: for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood; which the LORD would not pardon.

(of course this means, without repentance of it.)

prov 6

12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. 13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; 14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth F20 discord. 15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. 16 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: 17 A proud F21 look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.



REMEMBER ALL these verses that noone was answering your questions too

Of course it was sin to kill innocents from the beginning. We have agreed with that all along.

Many of the verses quoted were in existence when God commanded the killing of the nation of Amalek and the deportation of all in Canaan. Men, women and children were killed by Saul as a result of a direct command of God. What does that tell us? That when Saul killed the babies of Amalek, he was not guilty of breaking those verses. Why? Because those verses are about murder and not war.

[Slug1]

ok for further clarification its more like this

i find out a murder is being plotted

i call the police to tell them

( that being my civil duty and all)

then the police come to talk to me, and take me away to station

i think you are making it sound like paul was scared and thought he needed soldiers - and to me thats just wayyyyy off base

The point of the scripture is to show us that utilization of soldiers is not wrong. I'm sure if Paul was led by the Holy Spirit to walk the whole way on his own, he'd have done it but he didn't.

The point is that if it is wrong for a Christian to be a soldier who will be required to fight in a war and kill others then it is wrong for ALL to serve in the military. Wrong is Wrong, can't be wrong for Christian's but right for non-Christian's. Thus if it is wrong for ALL to serve in the military or police forces then it is also wrong for anyone to include Christian's to utilize them for help.

[Slug1]

Janet, I'm interested for your views on God's wrath against Joshua at the battle of Ai? Since you say God will never use wrath against Christian's. Granted they weren't "Christian's" back then but you know what I mean, don't ya

My name is Ken, BTW