PDA

View Full Version : Protecting one's life?



Jaaniya
Feb 1st 2009, 12:10 AM
A friend recently asked me about this argument she has and I'm not quite so sure about what the bible says. please help out.

What does the Bible say about protecting ones own life? Aren't we supposed to cherish the life that the Lord gave us and that's why it's a sin to commit suicide? So, what if someone's trying to kill me and the only options were kill or be killed? What's the right thing to do? Kill the person to save your life or let the person kill you? We are all equal right, so taking someone else's life is as bad as taking our own... But if you know someone's going to kill you and you let it happen, isn't that the same as suicide?

SeattleSun
Feb 1st 2009, 01:08 AM
Hi Jaaniya!

This passage from Luke comes to mind:

22:35And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing."

36And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.
37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

We're to turn the other cheek when insulted or slapped. That's as far as Christ went in that vein.

The world is hostile and violent, we're to be practical and prepared.

Butch5
Feb 1st 2009, 04:08 AM
A friend recently asked me about this argument she has and I'm not quite so sure about what the bible says. please help out.

What does the Bible say about protecting ones own life? Aren't we supposed to cherish the life that the Lord gave us and that's why it's a sin to commit suicide? So, what if someone's trying to kill me and the only options were kill or be killed? What's the right thing to do? Kill the person to save your life or let the person kill you? We are all equal right, so taking someone else's life is as bad as taking our own... But if you know someone's going to kill you and you let it happen, isn't that the same as suicide?

Christ said not to return evil for evil. The early church taught that when faced with this situation one was to lay down their life. They would rather have given their own life in the hope that the other might at some later point be saved.

SeattleSun
Feb 1st 2009, 04:26 AM
Christ said not to return evil for evil. The early church taught that when faced with this situation one was to lay down their life. They would rather have given their own life in the hope that the other might at some later point be saved.

That isn't really addressing the OP's question is it?

There is no greater love than to lay down your life for your brother.

Is that referring to some some random person carjacking you at gun point? Tomorrow? Holding your little kid at knife point after breaking into your house?

Why did Christ tell His apostles to buy a sword? You're referring to wide spread, violent persecution, the OP is speaking of random violence.

Butch5
Feb 1st 2009, 05:02 AM
That isn't really addressing the OP's question is it?

There is no greater love than to lay down your life for your brother.

Is that referring to some some random person carjacking you at gun point? Tomorrow? Holding your little kid at knife point after breaking into your house?

Why did Christ tell His apostles to buy a sword? You're referring to wide spread, violent persecution, the OP is speaking of random violence.

The sermon on the mount is speaking of widespread persecution???


Matthew 5:38-44 ( KJV ) 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.



43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;



Please explain to me, how a person is loving their enemy, when they kill them.

Benaiah
Feb 1st 2009, 05:12 AM
Matthew 5:38-44 ( KJV ) 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

none of the above deals with responding to unlawful criminal attack.

Striking someone in the cheek was one of the highest forms of personal insult. it was not a criminal attack. Someone suing you is doing so thru the legal system also not a criminal attack. Being compelled to carry a burden was also part of the roman legal system, a roman soldier could compel you to carry something for him for an allotted distance.

Jesus did not tell the ones he sent out to get a sword if they did not have one because they would need them to cut their sandwiches. There is nothing in scripture that tells us to submit to unlawful assaults.

crossnote
Feb 1st 2009, 06:45 AM
For those weaker in faith, 'fleeing' is not a sin.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,
(Luk 21:20-21)

Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
(Mat 10:21-23)

Butch5
Feb 1st 2009, 07:06 PM
none of the above deals with responding to unlawful criminal attack.

Striking someone in the cheek was one of the highest forms of personal insult. it was not a criminal attack. Someone suing you is doing so thru the legal system also not a criminal attack. Being compelled to carry a burden was also part of the roman legal system, a roman soldier could compel you to carry something for him for an allotted distance.

Jesus did not tell the ones he sent out to get a sword if they did not have one because they would need them to cut their sandwiches. There is nothing in scripture that tells us to submit to unlawful assaults.

You might want to look at that in context. Was an eye for an eye only referring to insults? That is the context in which Jesus said do not return evil for evil. Under the old covenant, the punishment was even up. Jesus said you have heard, then He said, "But I say unto you" He changed the old law, and He said, do not return evil for evil. If someone attacks you and you retaliate, what is that?

Butch5
Feb 1st 2009, 07:08 PM
For those weaker in faith, 'fleeing' is not a sin.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,
(Luk 21:20-21)

Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
(Mat 10:21-23)


Well said, fleeing is the best way.

Benaiah
Feb 1st 2009, 08:57 PM
You might want to look at that in context. Was an eye for an eye only referring to insults? That is the context in which Jesus said do not return evil for evil. Under the old covenant, the punishment was even up. Jesus said you have heard, then He said, "But I say unto you" He changed the old law, and He said, do not return evil for evil. If someone attacks you and you retaliate, what is that?

Actually I am taking the context into consideration, all of it.

First let us examine what Jesus said, notice He does not say "It is written". He says, "You have heard it said". clearly Jesus is pointing not to the meaning of the written law, but rather some teaching promoted under the concept of "Eye for an eye. one that did not adhere to the intent of that law, (A limitation to not take ore than an eye for an eye) but one that rather said it was ok to retaliate against anyone that does wrong to you. That This is clearly the case is established by Verse 43,


"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

There is no command in the OT to "Hate your enemy".

Nothing in the passage relates to responding to a threat to your life. And nowhere in scripture is self defense regarded as evil.

Under your interpretation here no Christian community could have a criminal justice system, Murder, rape, robbery, etc would all go unpunished. Do you really think this was Christ's intent?

How then do you understand Romans 13?


Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.
Rom 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Butch5
Feb 1st 2009, 09:19 PM
Actually I am taking the context into consideration, all of it.

First let us examine what Jesus said, notice He does not say "It is written". He says, "You have heard it said". clearly Jesus is pointing not to the meaning of the written law, but rather some teaching promoted under the concept of "Eye for an eye. one that did not adhere to the intent of that law, (A limitation to not take ore than an eye for an eye) but one that rather said it was ok to retaliate against anyone that does wrong to you. That This is clearly the case is established by Verse 43,



There is no command in the OT to "Hate your enemy".

Nothing in the passage relates to responding to a threat to your life. And nowhere in scripture is self defense regarded as evil.

Under your interpretation here no Christian community could have a criminal justice system, Murder, rape, robbery, etc would all go unpunished. Do you really think this was Christ's intent?

How then do you understand Romans 13?

Can you give some evidence of this teaching?

As I stated in my original post, the early church followed this teaching, do you suppose that all of the men appointed by the apostles misunderstood what the apostles taught them?

John the baptist, when questioned by the soldiers as to what to do, told them to harm no man. Why do you suppose John would say that to a soldier, if it was OK to defend yourself?

Romans 13 speaks of God setting up authority. They are appointed by God. Which Christians have been authorized by God to distribute Justice? Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight. If Christ would not let His servants fight to protect His life, who's life is more valuable? It was for this reason that the early Christians would not serve in any type of office. I can give you many quotes from the early church. All they did was follow Jesus example.

HisLeast
Feb 1st 2009, 10:50 PM
EXODUS 22:2 - If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.

That's some exceptionally clear teaching about the sanctity of one's home. But here's another interesting one....

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Anyone want to wager a guess as to what would happen to the attacker should one be there to rescue the screaming girl?

Butch5
Feb 1st 2009, 11:08 PM
EXODUS 22:2 - If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed.

That's some exceptionally clear teaching about the sanctity of one's home. But here's another interesting one....

Deuteronomy 22:25-27 for the man found the girl out in the country, and though the betrothed girl screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

Anyone want to wager a guess as to what would happen to the attacker should one be there to rescue the screaming girl?

Here's some interesting Scripture also,

Matthew 5:21 ( KJV ) 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,

22But I say unto you,


Matthew 5:27 ( KJV ) 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,

28But I say unto you,

Matthew 5:33 ( KJV ) 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,


34But I say unto you


38Ye have heard that it hath been said,


39But I say unto you,



Matthew 5:43 ( KJV ) 43Ye have heard that it hath been said,


44But I say unto you,

Jesus is the new lawgiver.

Benaiah
Feb 2nd 2009, 12:27 AM
Can you give some evidence of this teaching?

Which teaching? the one I mentioned that Jesus was responding to? if so the evidence is in his words, either Jesus was misquoting scripture, ( since there is no scriptural command to hate your enemies) or Jesus was speaking of a popular common teaching on the subject. I for one do not believe that Jesus misquoted Scripture.


As I stated in my original post, the early church followed this teaching, do you suppose that all of the men appointed by the apostles misunderstood what the apostles taught them?

The "Early" Church is not always right, where it differs from the Apostles I will stick with the Apostles. You are barking up the wrong tree if your making an appeal to "tradition".

Ad on the subject of the early Church fathers they wrote a lot about war, and about whether not Christians could hold positions of authority or serve in the army. Neither of which deals with the issue of self defense.


John the baptist, when questioned by the soldiers as to what to do, told them to harm no man. Why do you suppose John would say that to a soldier, if it was OK to defend yourself?

What he actually said was,

Luk 3:14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."

And the three things he mentioned are all connected, so his advice was not to intimidate thru violence, or threats of violence,( because the word there means to "shake throughly", "to make to tremble, or "To terrify") in order to extort money or property from people.


Romans 13 speaks of God setting up authority. They are appointed by God. Which Christians have been authorized by God to distribute Justice? Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight. If Christ would not let His servants fight to protect His life, who's life is more valuable? It was for this reason that the early Christians would not serve in any type of office. I can give you many quotes from the early church. All they did was follow Jesus example.

Jesus was not facing criminals he was being tried by the ruling authority, again this has nothing to do with self defense aqainst criminal agression by those acting OUTSIDE of the law.

threebigrocks
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:49 AM
For those weaker in faith, 'fleeing' is not a sin.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it,
(Luk 21:20-21)

Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
(Mat 10:21-23)


How does fleeing mean weak faith? :hmm:

crossnote
Feb 2nd 2009, 04:02 AM
How does fleeing mean weak faith? :hmm:

Good question. I was thinking in terms of Paul's insistence to go to face danger even when warned against it.

And when he was come unto us, he took Paul's girdle, and bound his own hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles. And when we heard these things, both we, and they of that place, besought him not to go up to Jerusalem. Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus. (Act 21:11-13)


It seems Paul's faith is such as to esteem the Gospel over his life even when he has a free choice to defer. It seems weaker faith would have passed on Agabus' warning.

Butch5
Feb 2nd 2009, 04:14 AM
Benaiah---Which teaching? the one I mentioned that Jesus was responding to? if so the evidence is in his words, either Jesus was misquoting scripture, ( since there is no scriptural command to hate your enemies) or Jesus was speaking of a popular common teaching on the subject. I for one do not believe that Jesus misquoted Scripture.

Why do you assume that Jesus was quoting Scripture?



Benaiah---The "Early" Church is not always right, where it differs from the Apostles I will stick with the Apostles. You are barking up the wrong tree if your making an appeal to "tradition".

Ad on the subject of the early Church fathers they wrote a lot about war, and about whether not Christians could hold positions of authority or serve in the army. Neither of which deals with the issue of self defense.

Instead of speaking against the early church , let's deal the question. Since the early church held the position that they would not harm another, is it possible that "all" of those appointed by the apostles to run the churches misunderstood what the apostles taught? All of the early writers of the church held this position, how could this be unless it is what they were taught by the apostles? Surly they didn't all say well the apostles said one thing but we're going to do another



Benaiah---What he actually said was,

Luk 3:14 Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, "And what shall we do?" So he said to them, "Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages."
And the three things he mentioned are all connected, so his advice was not to intimidate thru violence, or threats of violence,( because the word there means to "shake throughly", "to make to tremble, or "To terrify") in order to extort money or property from people.

I'll give you that.



Benaiah---Jesus was not facing criminals he was being tried by the ruling authority, again this has nothing to do with self defense aqainst criminal agression by those acting OUTSIDE of the law.

Why do you keep trying to defend self defense? Explain to me how you are loving your enemy when you are defending yourself with force. Explain to me how you are blessing those who willfully persecute and despitefully use you, when you are defending yourself with force. How are you doing good to them that hate you, when you defend yourself with force? Jesus said do not resist evil, if you use force to defend yourself, are you not resisting evil???


I know this is not what people want to hear, but the Scripture is clear here.

Benaiah
Feb 2nd 2009, 05:20 AM
Why do you assume that Jesus was quoting Scripture?

You missed my point, which is that Jesus was NOT quoting scripture and commenting on the scripture itself. He was instead dealing with erroneous teaching based on a bad interpretation of Scripture.



Instead of speaking against the early church , let's deal the question. Since the early church held the position that they would not harm another, is it possible that "all" of those appointed by the apostles to run the churches misunderstood what the apostles taught? All of the early writers of the church held this position, how could this be unless it is what they were taught by the apostles? Surly they didn't all say well the apostles said one thing but we're going to do another

I have yet to see "early Church writings dealing with self defense against criminal attack. What the early Church did practice was no violence offered to legitimate authority even to the point of laying down their lives, shunning military service but less because of the violence in it and more because of the pagan nature of the armies and the pagan practices and worship that a soldier was expected to take part in. Yet despite this we have plenty of evidence that there were indeed Christians in the military of the period.


Why do you keep trying to defend self defense? Explain to me how you are loving your enemy when you are defending yourself with force. Explain to me how you are blessing those who willfully persecute and despitefully use you, when you are defending yourself with force. How are you doing good to them that hate you, when you defend yourself with force? Jesus said do not resist evil, if you use force to defend yourself, are you not resisting evil???

First because that is what this thread is about, but many here including you keep posting scriptures that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of self defense against someone acting outside of legal authority attempting to kill you. you post verses dealing with being insulted, (including being slapped), being sued, cursed, hated or compelled to do something, as thought they are the same thing as defending oneself against criminals.

Now in your view why did Jesus tell his disciples if they did not have a sword to sell thier cloak and buy one? what was the purpose of a sword?

HisLeast
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:43 PM
Here's some interesting Scripture also,

Matthew 5:21 ( KJV ) 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
22But I say unto you,
Matthew 5:27 ( KJV ) 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time,
28But I say unto you,
Matthew 5:33 ( KJV ) 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time,
34But I say unto you
38Ye have heard that it hath been said,
39But I say unto you,
Matthew 5:43 ( KJV ) 43Ye have heard that it hath been said,
44But I say unto you,
Jesus is the new lawgiver.

Is it even worth reading the old testament any more?

threebigrocks
Feb 2nd 2009, 02:48 PM
Is it even worth reading the old testament any more?

Most definately! ;)

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:42 AM
Benaiah---You missed my point, which is that Jesus was NOT quoting scripture and commenting on the scripture itself. He was instead dealing with erroneous teaching based on a bad interpretation of Scripture.

And you missed my point, Jesus said but "I say".



Benaiah---I have yet to see "early Church writings dealing with self defense against criminal attack. What the early Church did practice was no violence offered to legitimate authority even to the point of laying down their lives, shunning military service but less because of the violence in it and more because of the pagan nature of the armies and the pagan practices and worship that a soldier was expected to take part in. Yet despite this we have plenty of evidence that there were indeed Christians in the military of the period.


First, let me state that when I say the early church, I am referring to he ante-Nicene Church, in which you will not find but a few instances of Christians in the military. However that is not the issue, the issue is that you will not find where the Ante-Nicene writers condoned Christians in the military.

I also notice you have yet to answer my questions, Since the early church held the position that they would not harm another, is it possible that "all" of those appointed by the apostles to run the churches misunderstood what the apostles taught? All of the early writers of the church held this position, how could this be unless it is what they were taught by the apostles? Surly they didn't all say well the apostles said one thing but we're going to do another.


Benaiah---First because that is what this thread is about, but many here including you keep posting scriptures that have absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue of self defense against someone acting outside of legal authority attempting to kill you. you post verses dealing with being insulted, (including being slapped), being sued, cursed, hated or compelled to do something, as thought they are the same thing as defending oneself against criminals.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2

Clement of Alexandria
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. (compare Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:17-22; Deuteronomy 19:11-21; Matthew 5:38) But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye,398II-7-398 and a tooth for a tooth," (Exodus 21:24) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak."

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4


This is a quote from a Roman critic writing against Christianinty.
"They have also," says he, "a precept to this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one who injures us, or, as he expresses it, ‘Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.’

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4

Commodianus
In like manner, as the statement is false "that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion," so also is this, "that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;" for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt., that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, "As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand." (cf. Psalm 81:5)

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 6

Theonas of Alexandria
Do no one an injury at any time, and provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ; and even as ye desire that He may remit your transgressions, do ye also forgive them theirs;

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7

Lactantius
But since wisdom has been given to man alone, that he may understand God, and this alone makes the difference between man and the dumb animals, justice itself is bound up in two duties. He owes the one to God as to a father, the other to man as to a brother; for we are produced by the same God. Therefore it has been deservedly and rightly said, that wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human affairs. For it is right that we should know what we owe to God, and what to man; namely, to God religion, to man affection. But the former belongs to wisdom, the latter to virtue; and justice comprises both. If, therefore, it is evident that man is born to justice, it is necessary that the just man should be subject to evils, that he may exercise the virtue with which he is endued. For virtue is the enduring of evils. He will avoid pleasures as an evil: he will despise riches, because they are frail; and if he has them, he will liberally bestow them, to preserve the wretched: he will not be desirous of honours, because they are short and transitory; he will do injury to no one; if he shall suffer, he will not retaliate; and he will not take vengeance upon one who plunders his property. For he will deem it unlawful to injure a man; and if there shall be any one who would compel him to depart from God, he will not refuse tortures nor death. Thus it will come to pass, that he must necessarily live in poverty and lowliness, and in insults, or even tortures.

This is just a small sample of quotes from the writings of the Ante-Nicene writers, clearly they did not use violence in self defense. These quotes do not even deal with their stance on war.
However you have not answered the questions that I posed.
Explain to me how you are loving your enemy when you are defending yourself with force. Explain to me how you are blessing those who willfully persecute and despitefully use you, when you are defending yourself with force. How are you doing good to them that hate you, when you defend yourself with force? Jesus said do not resist evil, if you use force to defend yourself, are you not resisting evil???



Benaiah---Now in your view why did Jesus tell his disciples if they did not have a sword to sell their cloak and buy one? what was the purpose of a sword?

It was an object lesson, When did Jesus say this? Right before He was to be taken, notice what happened when He was taken,

Matthew 26:50-53 ( KJV ) 50And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. 52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus told Peter, put up your sword, in other words Peter, this is not the way. Jesus told Peter whoever lives by the sword, shall die by the sword. The reason Jesus told them to bring a sword was to show them that violence was not the answer.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2009, 03:43 AM
Is it even worth reading the old testament any more?

Yes, of coarse. This just concerns the new laws. Jesus is the new lawgiver.

HisLeast
Feb 3rd 2009, 04:50 PM
Yes, of coarse. This just concerns the new laws. Jesus is the new lawgiver.

Strange that the old rights are now condemned and old condemnations are now right though, doesn't it?

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2009, 05:24 PM
Strange that the old rights are now condemned and old condemnations are now right though, doesn't it?

Anything in particular, other than the ones spooken of here?

Emanate
Feb 3rd 2009, 05:37 PM
And you missed my point, Jesus said but "I say".





First, let me state that when I say the early church, I am referring to he ante-Nicene Church, in which you will not find but a few instances of Christians in the military. However that is not the issue, the issue is that you will not find where the Ante-Nicene writers condoned Christians in the military.

I also notice you have yet to answer my questions, Since the early church held the position that they would not harm another, is it possible that "all" of those appointed by the apostles to run the churches misunderstood what the apostles taught? All of the early writers of the church held this position, how could this be unless it is what they were taught by the apostles? Surly they didn't all say well the apostles said one thing but we're going to do another.



Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2

Clement of Alexandria
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. (compare Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:17-22; Deuteronomy 19:11-21; Matthew 5:38) But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye,398II-7-398 and a tooth for a tooth," (Exodus 21:24) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak."

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4


This is a quote from a Roman critic writing against Christianinty.
"They have also," says he, "a precept to this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one who injures us, or, as he expresses it, ‘Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.’

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4

Commodianus
In like manner, as the statement is false "that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion," so also is this, "that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;" for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt., that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, "As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand." (cf. Psalm 81:5)

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 6

Theonas of Alexandria
Do no one an injury at any time, and provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ; and even as ye desire that He may remit your transgressions, do ye also forgive them theirs;

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7

Lactantius
But since wisdom has been given to man alone, that he may understand God, and this alone makes the difference between man and the dumb animals, justice itself is bound up in two duties. He owes the one to God as to a father, the other to man as to a brother; for we are produced by the same God. Therefore it has been deservedly and rightly said, that wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human affairs. For it is right that we should know what we owe to God, and what to man; namely, to God religion, to man affection. But the former belongs to wisdom, the latter to virtue; and justice comprises both. If, therefore, it is evident that man is born to justice, it is necessary that the just man should be subject to evils, that he may exercise the virtue with which he is endued. For virtue is the enduring of evils. He will avoid pleasures as an evil: he will despise riches, because they are frail; and if he has them, he will liberally bestow them, to preserve the wretched: he will not be desirous of honours, because they are short and transitory; he will do injury to no one; if he shall suffer, he will not retaliate; and he will not take vengeance upon one who plunders his property. For he will deem it unlawful to injure a man; and if there shall be any one who would compel him to depart from God, he will not refuse tortures nor death. Thus it will come to pass, that he must necessarily live in poverty and lowliness, and in insults, or even tortures.
This is just a small sample of quotes from the writings of the Ante-Nicene writers, clearly they did not use violence in self defense. These quotes do not even deal with their stance on war.
However you have not answered the questions that I posed.
Explain to me how you are loving your enemy when you are defending yourself with force. Explain to me how you are blessing those who willfully persecute and despitefully use you, when you are defending yourself with force. How are you doing good to them that hate you, when you defend yourself with force? Jesus said do not resist evil, if you use force to defend yourself, are you not resisting evil???




It was an object lesson, When did Jesus say this? Right before He was to be taken, notice what happened when He was taken,

Matthew 26:50-53 ( KJV ) 50And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. 52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Jesus told Peter, put up your sword, in other words Peter, this is not the way. Jesus to Peter whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword. The reason Jesus was told them to bring a sword was to show them that Violence was not the answer.


This just in:Chruch "Fathers" were not infallible.

You really equate self defense to "living by the sword"?
Wow.

I do believe that the issue of Messiah and Peter in the garden is a little bit different than the act of self defense. Unless we are all spotless lambs to atone for the sins of the world.

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2009, 05:59 PM
This just in:Chruch "Fathers" were not infallible.

You really equate self defense to "living by the sword"?
Wow.

I do believe that the issue of Messiah and Peter in the garden is a little bit different than the act of self defense. Unless we are all spotless lambs to atone for the sins of the world.

It appears you have not followed the conversation, I did not equate self defense with living by the sword. The statement about Jesus and Peter in the garden was a response to a direct question regarding Scripture.

The church fathers were not infallible, however, this was pretty much a unanimous teaching, for at least the first 225 years, over the entire region, form Gaul, to north Africa, to Rome, to Turkey. Are we to understand that those who were in charge of the apostolic churches by the apostles, did not understand what the apostles taught them??? The apostle John lived long after the other apostles, He wrote his gospel, three epistles, and the book of Revelation, seems he would have at least mentioned to the Church fathers that they were teaching a false doctrine, if this were the case.

Having said that, I notice you chose not to answer the questions.

HisLeast
Feb 3rd 2009, 06:49 PM
Anything in particular, other than the ones spooken of here?

Wow, practically everything. Atonement, cleanliness laws, sabbath, tithing, attire, diet, circumcision.

And I'm not playing coy here. I honestly find it baffling that there is zero consequence for defending your home from invasion, or saving a woman being raped, but in the new testament its an explicit statement not to... unless I misunderstood post #13 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1966823&postcount=13).

Butch5
Feb 3rd 2009, 11:30 PM
Wow, practically everything. Atonement, cleanliness laws, sabbath, tithing, attire, diet, circumcision.

And I'm not playing coy here. I honestly find it baffling that there is zero consequence for defending your home from invasion, or saving a woman being raped, but in the new testament its an explicit statement not to... unless I misunderstood post #13 (http://bibleforums.org/showpost.php?p=1966823&postcount=13).

They truly believed that God would protect them. When we defend ourselves are we truly trusting God? I can't say that I would be able to stand by and do nothing, I hope I could. But when we look at what the early church taught, that is what they did. The apostles could have gathered crowds to protect them from being killed, but they didn't.

HisLeast
Feb 4th 2009, 01:26 AM
They truly believed that God would protect them. When we defend ourselves are we truly trusting God? I can't say that I would be able to stand by and do nothing, I hope I could. But when we look at what the early church taught, that is what they did. The apostles could have gathered crowds to protect them from being killed, but they didn't.

So again... baffling, confusing, and altogether frustrating that the things that brought no condemnations now condemn, and the things that brought condemnation no longer do.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2009, 03:47 AM
So again... baffling, confusing, and altogether frustrating that the things that brought no condemnations now condemn, and the things that brought condemnation no longer do.

What things brought no condemnation before and now do?

HisLeast
Feb 4th 2009, 02:02 PM
What things brought no condemnation before and now do?

The violent defense of your home or women being attacked, unless I totally misunderstood something.

Butch5
Feb 4th 2009, 05:10 PM
The violent defense of your home or women being attacked, unless I totally misunderstood something.

Christ is a new lawgiver, even Moses spoke of this,

Acts 3:20-23 ( KJV ) 20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.


Deuteronomy 18:15-19 ( KJV ) 15The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.


Jesus is "that prophet," He is the new lawgiver.

Genesis 49:10 ( KJV ) 10The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

The septer is for the king and the lawgiver shall not depart from Judah til Shiloh comes.

pinky
Feb 5th 2009, 01:36 PM
I agree that we are not to be violent under any circumstances. Christ is our perfect example to follow.

When the crowed gathered to stone the woman for adultery, did Jesus defend her with violence?

It takes great faith to trust fully in the Lord to defend us. It is impulse of the flesh to defend ourselves with violence.


There are also powerful testimonies of those who have been under attack by rapists, thieves, murderers, who instead of resisting started praying for their attackers which resulted in their attackers fleeing or even being converted.

The Lord is mightier than the flesh. All praise, honor and glory to HIM.

HisLeast
Feb 5th 2009, 01:58 PM
I agree that we are not to be violent under any circumstances. Christ is our perfect example to follow.

When the crowed gathered to stone the woman for adultery, did Jesus defend her with violence?
Did he have to?
What if they had been raping her instead of stoning her under the law?
Interestingly enough, if Jesus is the litmus test, what happened to the money exchangers?


It takes great faith to trust fully in the Lord to defend us. It is impulse of the flesh to defend ourselves with violence.
An impulse seemingly excused under the law under some circumstances.

pinky
Feb 5th 2009, 04:26 PM
Interestingly enough, if Jesus is the litmus test, what happened to the money exchangers?

Did Jesus beat them or kill them?

Also, wasn't this an act to demonstrate prophecy?

Jhn 2:14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.
17 And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.
18 Then answered the Jews and said unto him, What sign shewest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things?
19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.



Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.




An impulse seemingly excused under the law under some circumstances.

A reasonable argument if one actually believes we are under OT law.;)


This is not to say that the OT is 'worthless' as some have accused, but that the NT is the NEW and BETTER Covenant. Perfect and eternal. That the NT is the instruction manual for our conduct as Christians.

Is there any clear teaching in our NT that says it is permissible to react with violence toward our enemies?

It seems every teaching on how we are to respond to our enemies says the complete opposite.





Peace in Christ,
pinky

HisLeast
Feb 6th 2009, 12:09 AM
Did Jesus beat them or kill them?
According to the text you posted, he certainly executed violence.
John 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:d7lR8cRIdVWWVM:http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/roman-scourge-1.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/roman-scourge-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bible-history.com/past/flagrum.html&usg=__vuU31tUBLdit0RM9jFvAUAA6b14=&h=487&w=399&sz=64&hl=en&start=5&um=1&tbnid=d7lR8cRIdVWWVM:&tbnh=129&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dscourge%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3 Dfirefox-a%26channel%3Ds%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN) This is what a scourge looks like. It is purpose built to light your pain centers up like a christmas tree, and leave a permanent reminder of the occasion on your flesh. If he wielded one of those to drive the money changers out, he wasn't using strong language. He DROVE them out and then overturned their tables. He used violence.


Also, wasn't this an act to demonstrate prophecy?
Does it matter?



This is not to say that the OT is 'worthless' as some have accused, but that the NT is the NEW and BETTER Covenant. Perfect and eternal. That the NT is the instruction manual for our conduct as Christians.

Is there any clear teaching in our NT that says it is permissible to react with violence toward our enemies?
There is clear instruction in both old and new to show fairness and justice to your enemies. The new testament goes so far as to love them. However, the old testament demonstrating God's understanding of mankind allows for violence in the defense of your home and in defense of women being raped.


It seems every teaching on how we are to respond to our enemies says the complete opposite.
So how does one then reconcile a clear contradiction in both word and spirit of the texts. What was once utterly void of condemnation, is now explicitly forbidden?

dan
Feb 11th 2009, 09:35 AM
A friend recently asked me about this argument she has and I'm not quite so sure about what the bible says. please help out.

[QUOTE=Jaaniya;1966030]What does the Bible say about protecting ones own life?

Stop those that intend to murder you or other innocents. Even if it results in their death:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

If you do not require the death of a murderer, God will blame you for polluting the earth:

NUM 35:31 You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.
NUM 35:32 The banished and fugitives before the death of the high priest may by no means return into their own cities.
NUM 35:33 Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another.
NUM 35:34 And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.

GEN 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
GEN 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


Aren't we supposed to cherish the life that the Lord gave us and that's why it's a sin to commit suicide?

Yup.


So, what if someone's trying to kill me and the only options were kill or be killed? What's the right thing to do? Kill the person to save your life or let the person kill you?

Drill 'em between the horns!:lol:


We are all equal right, so taking someone else's life is as bad as taking our own... But if you know someone's going to kill you and you let it happen, isn't that the same as suicide?

Taking an innocents life is as bad as someone taking yours, if you are innocent. But, if you know someone intends to kill you, and you do nothing, you are committing suicide, IMO.

Butch5
Feb 11th 2009, 06:08 PM
[quote=Jaaniya;1966030]A friend recently asked me about this argument she has and I'm not quite so sure about what the bible says. please help out.



Stop those that intend to murder you or other innocents. Even if it results in their death:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

If you do not require the death of a murderer, God will blame you for polluting the earth:

NUM 35:31 You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.
NUM 35:32 The banished and fugitives before the death of the high priest may by no means return into their own cities.
NUM 35:33 Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another.
NUM 35:34 And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.

GEN 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
GEN 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.



Yup.



Drill 'em between the horns!:lol:



Taking an innocents life is as bad as someone taking yours, if you are innocent. But, if you know someone intends to kill you, and you do nothing, you are committing suicide, IMO.

Dan,

Have you read through this thread? If so, how do you respond to the evidence against your position?

dan
Feb 16th 2009, 07:05 AM
[quote=dan;1977327]

Dan,

Have you read through this thread? If so, how do you respond to the evidence against your position?

...You did not ask any specific question, I'll choose a few:

Tertullian
Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye,398II-7-398 and a tooth for a tooth," (Exodus 21:24) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak."

A new patience for some offenses, true, but...

If you take the verse specifically:

EX 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
EX 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
EX 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
EX 21:26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

Jesus modified the eye and tooth only. Life, hand, foot and the rest still stand.

Remember, Jesus started His Ministry saying:

MT 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

MT 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

And...

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

You cannot ignore Jesus' saying:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

And what about other places in the NT?

Did John The Baptist tell the soldiers not to kill, ever? No!

LK 3:14 And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse `any one' wrongfully; and be content with your wages.(The Bible In Basic English)

When The Holy Spirit directed the Apostles to issue the Gentile Commandments, did they include "never kill"l? No!

ACTS 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
ACTS 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

And, again, when The Holy Spirit showed John the first beast speaking against God, He rebuked him with words that affirmed the killing of murderers:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Anything you think I missed?

Butch5
Feb 17th 2009, 12:27 AM
DAn---...You did not ask any specific question, I'll choose a few:

Tertullian
Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," (Exodus 21:24) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak."

A new patience for some offenses, true, but...

If you take the verse specifically:

EX 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
EX 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
EX 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
EX 21:26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

Jesus modified the eye and tooth only. Life, hand, foot and the rest still stand.

That's really reaching Dan, however, even if we accept your interpretation here, you still have Jesus teaching that we not resist evil, that we love our enemies, and so on.


Dan---Remember, Jesus started His Ministry saying:

MT 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

MT 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

And...

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

You cannot ignore Jesus' saying:

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.


Where is Jesus advocating force here? He is merely stating fact.


Dan---And what about other places in the NT?

Did John The Baptist tell the soldiers not to kill, ever? No!

LK 3:14 And soldiers also asked him, saying, And we, what must we do? And he said unto them, Extort from no man by violence, neither accuse `any one' wrongfully; and be content with your wages.(The Bible In Basic English)

An argument from silence is no argument. Do you have all of that conversation recorded in Scripture? It may be that Luke didn't mention that part of the conversation.


Dan---When The Holy Spirit directed the Apostles to issue the Gentile Commandments, did they include "never kill"l? No!

ACTS 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
ACTS 15:29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

Look at the context, first these words were spoken to believers who already knew they were not kill, this was an issue dealing with Judaizers who were trying to get the gentiiles to be curcumcised and make them follow the law.


Dan---And, again, when The Holy Spirit showed John the first beast speaking against God, He rebuked him with words that affirmed the killing of murderers:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

Could you please put these verses in context and show me how Christ is advocating the use of the sword?

dan
Feb 17th 2009, 08:44 PM
That's really reaching Dan, however, even if we accept your interpretation here, you still have Jesus teaching that we not resist evil, that we love our enemies, and so on.

I disagree. That is taking God literally, which is what He intended.

Don't resist evil that has the boundaries that are set by Jesus: A slap, or two, on the face, etc.

MT 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
MT 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
MT 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
MT 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
MT 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
MT 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
MT 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

But, that's as far as you go. Exactly as He said, and not one inch more.

No where, in His Instruction, is any command to allow someone to murder you or your family, quite the reverse.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

What you obviously don't understand, is that the above is The Recipe For Peace.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I like this one the best: "Possessing a weapon is preferable to having a coat".

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

"Goodman" is the operative part here, the rest will let themselves be destroyed. Those, by definition, are "bad" men.

Yes, love your enemies, you don't have to hate them to punish them or prevent them. You punish a child, but you don't hate the child.

Also, I would contend, that, if you stop a man from murdering, even by killing him, you may have saved his soul from hell.


Where is Jesus advocating force here? He is merely stating fact.

If you don't know what an armed man intends to do to keep the peace, let me give you a hint:

The Columbian, Vancouver, Wash., 11/20/04

Hearing a motorcycle engine start in the garage of his Fisher's Landing, Wash., home at 1:49 a.m., Shawn McAndrews investigated. He found three intruders, one of whom pointed a pistol at him. McAndrews retrieved a rifle, and, when the gunman failed to drop his weapon, fired, killing him. The two accomplices fled the scene.


An argument from silence is no argument. Do you have all of that conversation recorded in Scripture? It may be that Luke didn't mention that part of the conversation.

Speaking of silence, I've yet to see a scripture of yours that I cannot explain. We have everything necessary in the Bible, if we can accept it.


Look at the context, first these words were spoken to believers who already knew they were not kill, this was an issue dealing with Judaizers who were trying to get the gentiiles to be curcumcised and make them follow the law.

I disagree. It means just what is written. If we cannot take the Bible at it's word, there can be no faith in God.


Could you please put these verses in context and show me how Christ is advocating the use of the sword?

Certainly.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:

Using these words as a prelude to what follows is very revealing. In all of scripture, only Jesus uses these words. Showing that this is a message from Him, and telling you that "all men should hear these words".

REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:

"If you mislead others about this message you will go to hell", or, "If a leader guides you into hell, he will not be able to save himself".

REV 13:10...He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.

"He that murders with a weapon must be killed with a weapon"

This situation only happens in self-defense or life saving scenarios. It is also a rebuke to what the first beast said against God, which, by deduction, had to be:

"The murderer must not be opposed by a weapon", or, "Self-defense is no reason to have a weapon".

This is very important. It is one of the things that the beast will insist on enforcing. It may even be one of the means of worshiping the beast that will allow you to take the mark.

REV 13:10...Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

"This is what all the saints hope and wait for."

If you can assume that only those that qualify for sainthood occupy heaven, then, anyone aspiring to go to heaven must believe that "murderers that kill with a weapon must be killed by a weapon". In other words you must believe in self-defense and never compromise on that point.

Compromising on that point is exactly what the first beast has in mind. As a matter of fact, self-defense is being made into an evil thing, on purpose, by the beast, right now.

All churches will have to accept it in order to get along with the beast, and, it appears, they will.

Church members that continue to support self-defense will be removed from the congregation permanently.

MT 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
MT 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Almost simple, huh?

Butch5
Feb 17th 2009, 09:32 PM
Dan---I disagree. That is taking God literally, which is what He intended.

Don't resist evil that has the boundaries that are set by Jesus: A slap, or two, on the face, etc.

MT 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
MT 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
MT 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
MT 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
MT 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
MT 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
MT 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

But, that's as far as you go. Exactly as He said, and not one inch more.

No where, in His Instruction, is any command to allow someone to murder you or your family, quite the reverse.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

What you obviously don't understand, is that the above is The Recipe For Peace.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

I like this one the best: "Possessing a weapon is preferable to having a coat".

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

"Goodman" is the operative part here, the rest will let themselves be destroyed. Those, by definition, are "bad" men.

Yes, love your enemies, you don't have to hate them to punish them or prevent them. You punish a child, but you don't hate the child.

Also, I would contend, that, if you stop a man from murdering, even by killing him, you may have saved his soul from hell.


So if Jesus didn't explicitly mention every possility that they might come across, those things would be excluded?

How is a person loving their enemies when they are trying to kill them?



Dan---The Columbian, Vancouver, Wash., 11/20/04

Hearing a motorcycle engine start in the garage of his Fisher's Landing, Wash., home at 1:49 a.m., Shawn McAndrews investigated. He found three intruders, one of whom pointed a pistol at him. McAndrews retrieved a rifle, and, when the gunman failed to drop his weapon, fired, killing him. The two accomplices fled the scene.

You didn't answer my question, How was Jesus advocating force here?



Dan---Speaking of silence, I've yet to see a scripture of yours that I cannot explain. We have everything necessary in the Bible, if we can accept it.


Again, you didn't answer the question. As for the Scriptures I have posted you have not answered them in context.



Dan---I disagree. It means just what is written. If we cannot take the Bible at it's word, there can be no faith in God.

So then, we need not be concerned with the issue being dealt with, we just interpret the Scriptures to mean whatever we want?





Dan---Certainly.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:

Using these words as a prelude to what follows is very revealing. In all of scripture, only Jesus uses these words. Showing that this is a message from Him, and telling you that "all men should hear these words".

REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity:

"If you mislead others about this message you will go to hell", or, "If a leader guides you into hell, he will not be able to save himself".

REV 13:10...He that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.

"He that murders with a weapon must be killed with a weapon"

This situation only happens in self-defense or life saving scenarios. It is also a rebuke to what the first beast said against God, which, by deduction, had to be:

"The murderer must not be opposed by a weapon", or, "Self-defense is no reason to have a weapon".

This is very important. It is one of the things that the beast will insist on enforcing. It may even be one of the means of worshiping the beast that will allow you to take the mark.

REV 13:10...Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

"This is what all the saints hope and wait for."

If you can assume that only those that qualify for sainthood occupy heaven, then, anyone aspiring to go to heaven must believe that "murderers that kill with a weapon must be killed by a weapon". In other words you must believe in self-defense and never compromise on that point.

Compromising on that point is exactly what the first beast has in mind. As a matter of fact, self-defense is being made into an evil thing, on purpose, by the beast, right now.

All churches will have to accept it in order to get along with the beast, and, it appears, they will.

Church members that continue to support self-defense will be removed from the congregation permanently.

MT 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
MT 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.



Again, could please put this passage in context? Please show how Christ is advocating force.



One more question for you, did the apostles understand what Jesus taught on the use of force?

dan
Feb 18th 2009, 09:19 AM
So if Jesus didn't explicitly mention every possility that they might come across, those things would be excluded?

I think, that, if you would be accused of "keeping His Sayings", then, yes. But one might carry it out in terms of degrees of force, I suppose.


You didn't answer my question, How was Jesus advocating force here?


The weapons are the advocates of force, themselves. When you raise the priority of a weapon above the level of your coat, you have advocated deadly force.:lol:

In Jesus' time, the possession of weapons was THE SIGN of a free man. A slave that was being freed was thrown a party at which he would receive weapons as gifts.

To a great extent, weapons are still THE SIGN. That is why the beast will try to eliminate them.

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)


[COLOR=green]Again, you didn't answer the question. As for the Scriptures I have posted you have not answered them in context.

God told us what to do, to a large extent in the OT, and Jesus modified a small portion of it. The rest is meant to stand.

Perhaps I misunderstood, which, besides Rev 13:9-10 did you need explained?


[COLOR=green]So then, we need not be concerned with the issue being dealt with, we just interpret the Scriptures to mean whatever we want?


I would never want you to go against whatever you feel is right. But, duty is what it is.:lol:

EZEK 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

EZEK 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.


One more question for you, did the apostles understand what Jesus taught on the use of force?



Absolutely, that is why Peter's first inclination in the garden was to strike with the sword.:idea:

Butch5
Feb 18th 2009, 08:25 PM
Dan---I think, that, if you would be accused of "keeping His Sayings", then, yes. But one might carry it out in terms of degrees of force, I suppose.

How does one "keep his sayings" and gut the heart of his message? Jesus accused the Pharisees of the very same thing you are advocating here. They held to the letter of the law yet, they missed the spirit of the law.



Dan---The weapons are the advocates of force, themselves. When you raise the priority of a weapon above the level of your coat, you have advocated deadly force.

In Jesus' time, the possession of weapons was THE SIGN of a free man. A slave that was being freed was thrown a party at which he would receive weapons as gifts.

To a great extent, weapons are still THE SIGN. That is why the beast will try to eliminate them.

DAN 11:22 And the arms of the fighter shall be overcome before his face, and shall be broken; yea also the prince of the covenant. (Douay)



Luke 22:30-38 ( KJV ) 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. 33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. 34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. 35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
If Jesus was advocating use of force, why did He tell the apostles that two swords is enough? There were twelve of them, I hardly think two swords would be sufficient. Two swords was sufficient because Jesus was going to teach them a lesson,

Matthew 26:47-53 ( KJV ) 47And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people. 48Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast. 49And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him. 50And Jesus said unto him, Friend, wherefore art thou come? Then came they, and laid hands on Jesus, and took him. 51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. 52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

He told Peter, put up your sword, those who live by the sword die by the sword. Also notice that Jesus repaired the damage that Peter did with his sword. Jesus also had at His disposal twelve legions of angles, yet He did not use force.


Dan---God told us what to do, to a large extent in the OT, and Jesus modified a small portion of it. The rest is meant to stand.

Perhaps I misunderstood, which, besides Rev 13:9-10 did you need explained?


I think you missed the point, Jesus didn't modify a small portion of it, He changed it.

I didn't need Rev. 13- 9-10 explained, I didn't ask for it to be explained, what I asked was for it to be put in context.



Dan---I would never want you to go against whatever you feel is right. But, duty is what it is.

EZEK 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

EZEK 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.


You didn't answer the question, are we to interpret scripture as we please regardless of the context in which it is written?


Dan---Absolutely, that is why Peter's first inclination in the garden was to strike with the sword.

If the Apostles understood Jesus teaching on the use of force were they capable of conveying it to those to whom they took the Gospel?



Dan---MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

As opposed to the bad man that does nothing?

As a side note, in you signature, the goodman is not good man vs. bad man. The Greek word translated "goodman" means to dwell in, or inhabit. It simply refers to a person living in a dwelling, whether they are good or bad.

HisLeast
Feb 18th 2009, 08:44 PM
What other things are now condemned which were not condemned in the Old Testament?

dan
Feb 19th 2009, 04:12 AM
How does one "keep his sayings" and gut the heart of his message? Jesus accused the Pharisees of the very same thing you are advocating here. They held to the letter of the law yet, they missed the spirit of the law.

...The Pharisees being rebuked for taking away the mantel of responsibility from the people and replacing it with phony, man-made, tradition:

MT 15:3 And in answer he said to them, Why do you, yourselves, go against the word of God on account of the teaching which has been handed down to you?
MT 15:4 For God said, Give honour to your father and mother: and, He who says evil of father or mother will be put to death.
MT 15:5 But you say, If a man says to his father or his mother, That by which you might have had profit from me is given to God;
MT 15:6 There is no need for him to give honour to his father. And you have made the word of God without effect because of your teaching.
MT 15:7 You false ones, well did Isaiah say of you,
MT 15:8 These people give me honour with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
MT 15:9 But their worship is to no purpose, while they give as their teaching the rules of men.
MT 15:10 And he got the people together and said to them, Give ear, and let my words be clear to you:
MT 15:11 Not that which goes into the mouth makes a man unclean, but that which comes out of the mouth.

Perhaps you could show me some verses where the spirit and letter of the law differ.
If the letter and the spirit of the law aren't the same, God is wasting His time.


Luke 22:30-38 ( KJV ) 30That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: 32But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. 33And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. 34And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me. 35And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. 37For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end. 38And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
If Jesus was advocating use of force, why did He tell the apostles that two swords is enough? There were twelve of them, I hardly think two swords would be sufficient. Two swords was sufficient because Jesus was going to teach them a lesson,

You think that is putting it in context? It only makes it stick out more!

I can think of two reasons for Jesus to say "it is enough":

First, in a world of swords, when traveling with others, two are plenty, if worn concealed. Everyone but the ones administering the disabling or killing stroke can fight and distract with walking sticks, or rocks. Common practices of the times.

Second, in Jesus' time, only Roman Citizens are allowed to carry weapons, and they are required to do so. If Jesus wished to be a transgressor of Roman Law, in order to be "numbered among the transgressors", all He has to do is to tell His "common" followers to buy and carry weapons.

The only problem with that is, by doing so, He has ordered the Apostles to disobey the government appointed above them by God, when it comes to weapons laws.:idea:

I love it.:lol:


He told Peter, put up your sword, those who live by the sword die by the sword. Also notice that Jesus repaired the damage that Peter did with his sword. Jesus also had at His disposal twelve legions of angles, yet He did not use force.

That is what the "Matthew" version says. If all the versions matched, I admit, my agreement would be assured, but they don't:

MK 14:47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
MK 14:48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
MK 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

LK 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
LK 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
LK 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
LK 22:52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
LK 22:53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

JN 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
JN 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
JN 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
JN 18:7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
JN 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
JN 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
JN 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
JN 18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

John's version supports the contention that Jesus could not allow any of the Apostles to be lost before He died. Which is why he told Peter to put away his sword before he was killed, in Matthew.

I would have thought that you would notice that all the others match the context of the Bible, as a whole, better than the Matthew Version. In addition, the others match more closely in detail to each other.


I think you missed the point, Jesus didn't modify a small portion of it, He changed it.

Remember, the Law is not bad, Jesus came to fulfill, and God does not change:

MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

ROM 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

JAS 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
JAS 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


I didn't need Rev. 13- 9-10 explained, I didn't ask for it to be explained, what I asked was for it to be put in context.

I disagree, you need an explanation, if you're honest about your beliefs.


You didn't answer the question, are we to interpret scripture as we please regardless of the context in which it is written?

If you assign an incorrect context to it, as you do above, you might as well invent a tradition that circumvents the "lesson" entirely. The effect is the same.


If the Apostles understood Jesus teaching on the use of force were they capable of conveying it to those to whom they took the Gospel?

Obviously. Of course, They saw the need for weapons everyday. Only now, in our time of seeming "security", does it appear to be logical to ignore things that used to be considered absolutely necessary.

Also, we have those, that are in league with the beast, knowingly or unknowingly, telling us that "there is no need", "what are you afraid of", "you're paranoid", "weapons are the cause of murder", and my favorite: "Your endangering all of us by carrying a gun".

1THESS 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.


As a side note, in you signature, the goodman is not good man vs. bad man. The Greek word translated "goodman" means to dwell in, or inhabit. It simply refers to a person living in a dwelling, whether they are good or bad.

If you assume that the Word is written for those people in the past, you're right!

Please consider, however, that the KJV was written for those of the End Times, and not for the people that will not see them.

Butch5
Feb 19th 2009, 05:48 AM
Dan---The Pharisees being rebuked for taking away the mantel of responsibility from the people and replacing it with phony, man-made, tradition:

MT 15:3 And in answer he said to them, Why do you, yourselves, go against the word of God on account of the teaching which has been handed down to you?
MT 15:4 For God said, Give honour to your father and mother: and, He who says evil of father or mother will be put to death.
MT 15:5 But you say, If a man says to his father or his mother, That by which you might have had profit from me is given to God;
MT 15:6 There is no need for him to give honour to his father. And you have made the word of God without effect because of your teaching.
MT 15:7 You false ones, well did Isaiah say of you,
MT 15:8 These people give me honour with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
MT 15:9 But their worship is to no purpose, while they give as their teaching the rules of men.
MT 15:10 And he got the people together and said to them, Give ear, and let my words be clear to you:
MT 15:11 Not that which goes into the mouth makes a man unclean, but that which comes out of the mouth.

Perhaps you could show me some verses where the spirit and letter of the law differ.
If the letter and the spirit of the law aren't the same, God is wasting His time.


Dan, first if you are not going to deal with my question directly there is not point in continuing the conversation. Pull verse of Scripture out of context here and there does not prove your point.

In the above Scripture passage Jesus is speaking of he OT law, not the new law that He brought.




Dan---You think that is putting it in context? It only makes it stick out more!

I can think of two reasons for Jesus to say "it is enough":

First, in a world of swords, when traveling with others, two are plenty, if worn concealed. Everyone but the ones administering the disabling or killing stroke can fight and distract with walking sticks, or rocks. Common practices of the times.

Second, in Jesus' time, only Roman Citizens are allowed to carry weapons, and they are required to do so. If Jesus wished to be a transgressor of Roman Law, in order to be "numbered among the transgressors", all He has to do is to tell His "common" followers to buy and carry weapons.

The only problem with that is, by doing so, He has ordered the Apostles to disobey the government appointed above them by God, when it comes to weapons laws.:idea:

I love it.:lol:


yea, tell the other 9 to use sticks and throw rocks. I give you Scripture, you give me man's opinion.

Can you give a source for this teaching that only Roman citizens were allowed to carry swords?



Dan---That is what the "Matthew" version says. If all the versions matched, I admit, my agreement would be assured, but they don't:

MK 14:47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.
MK 14:48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?
MK 14:49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

LK 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow, they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?
LK 22:50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear.
LK 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.
LK 22:52 Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and captains of the temple, and the elders, which were come to him, Be ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and staves?
LK 22:53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness.

JN 18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
JN 18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
JN 18:6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
JN 18:7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth.
JN 18:8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way:
JN 18:9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none.
JN 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.
JN 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?
JN 18:12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

John's version supports the contention that Jesus could not allow any of the Apostles to be lost before He died. Which is why he told Peter to put away his sword before he was killed, in Matthew.

I would have thought that you would notice that all the others match the context of the Bible, as a whole, better than the Matthew Version. In addition, the others match more closely in detail to each other.


Where in any of the passages does Jesus advocate the use of force?



Dan---Remember, the Law is not bad, Jesus came to fulfill, and God does not change:

MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

ROM 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

JAS 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
JAS 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.


You forgot one,

Romans 10:4 ( KJV ) 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.



Dan---I disagree, you need an explanation, if you're honest about your beliefs.

And yet again you did not put the passage in context.



Dan---If you assign an incorrect context to it, as you do above, you might as well invent a tradition that circumvents the "lesson" entirely. The effect is the same.

And yet again, you did not answer the question,

You didn't answer the question, are we to interpret scripture as we please regardless of the context in which it is written?



Dan---Obviously. Of course, They saw the need for weapons everyday. Only now, in our time of seeming "security", does it appear to be logical to ignore things that used to be considered absolutely necessary.

Also, we have those, that are in league with the beast, knowingly or unknowingly, telling us that "there is no need", "what are you afraid of", "you're paranoid", "weapons are the cause of murder", and my favorite: "Your endangering all of us by carrying a gun".

1THESS 5:3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.


OK, if the apostles understood the Jesus' teachings and they were able to convey that teaching to those to whom they took the gospel, how come the early church, for the first 325 years was adamantly opposed to any use of force for any reason?Why would Ignatius be opposed to e use of force if John had told him it was OK? Why would Clement of Rome be opposed to the use of force if Paul had told him it was OK? Why would Polycarp be opposed to force if John Had told him it was OK? These men were taught by the apostles, surly they understood what the apostles were teaching. I can't imagine that the apostles would hand the churches over to men who they didn't think understood the gospel. How could the apostles teach that it was OK and yet the entire early church for the first 325 years said it is not OK at all?




Dan---If you assume that the Word is written for those people in the past, you're right!

Please consider, however, that the KJV was written for those of the End Times, and not for the people that will not see them.


It doesn't matter, the word means what it means. The KJV may not even be around at the end times.

dan
Feb 19th 2009, 11:54 AM
Dan, first if you are not going to deal with my question directly there is not point in continuing the conversation. Pull verse of Scripture out of context here and there does not prove your point.

And if you cannot show a context that contradicts the plain text, your premise is invalid.


yea, tell the other 9 to use sticks and throw rocks. I give you Scripture, you give me man's opinion.

No, I've given you history and tactics. The short sword is a concealable weapon so a robber would not know who was armed. If the offender attacked one of the unarmed persons, the ones that were armed could come in at the rear or flank and have a great advantage. If a bad guy attacked an
armed man he would suffer great distractions from the ensuing sword fight in the form of rocks and clubs.


Can you give a source for this teaching that only Roman citizens were allowed to carry swords?

There are many sources showing the Romans returning weapons to their owners after they swore allegiance to Rome, even online. I have seen one book that had greater detail, written in 1947, but it is missing from the library, at the moment.


Where in any of the passages does Jesus advocate the use of force?

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

LK 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things [which belong] unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Where does Jesus say "never use force"?


You forgot one, Romans 10:4 ( KJV ) 4For Christ is the end
of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.

And yet, if you don't accept what Jesus is saying the Law is not ended for you.

ROM 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It is righteousness that a murderer be killed or prevented by his victim. Praise God, it is poetic justice!


You didn't answer the question, are we to interpret scripture as we please regardless of the context in which it is written?

Prove your premise! Show me a verse where the plain text is overwhelmed by context. You write as if it is fact, show all of us that are watching.


It doesn't matter, the word means what it means. The KJV may not even be around at the end times.

The Word means what it means. How true.

"About the time of the end, a body of men will rise up who will turn their attention to prophecies, and insist on their literal translation, in the midst of clamour and opposition."-Sir Isaac Newton

Butch5
Feb 19th 2009, 02:47 PM
Dan---And if you cannot show a context that contradicts the plain text, your premise is invalid.

Dan, I have shown you where Jesus changed the law.

Deuteronomy 18:15-16 ( KJV ) 15The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.

Acts 3:22 ( KJV ) 22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.

Christ was that prophet, so, how is Christ like Moses? Moses was different from all of the other prophets in one aspect, he brought the law, Christ likewise being a prophet like Moses brought the law.

Matthew 5:17 ( KJV ) 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Matthew 5:21-24 ( KJV ) 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, RacaRaca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. 23Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; 24Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

You have heard it said, thou shalt not kill "but I say unto you" Do not be angry with your brother. Jesus says to if some has something against us, for us to go to them and reconcile it, not wait for them to come to us. Notice Jesus commandment is above and beyond that of the OT law.

Matthew 5:27-28 ( KJV ) 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Again, Jesus command is above and beyond the OT law

Matthew 5:33-37 ( KJV ) 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
Again, above and beyond.

Matthew 5:38-42 ( KJV ) 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. 41And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Again, above and beyond.

Matthew 5:43-48 ( KJV ) 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
yet again, above and beyond.

OK, Jesus changed the law. When you use force, how are you resisting evil? Loving your enemies? Blessing them that persecute you? Doing good to them that hate you? Praying for them that despitefully use you?



Dan---No, I've given you history and tactics. The short sword is a concealable weapon so a robber would not know who was armed. If the offender attacked one of the unarmed persons, the ones that were armed could come in at the rear or flank and have a great advantage. If a bad guy attacked an
armed man he would suffer great distractions from the ensuing sword fight in the form of rocks and clubs.

Whether this is the case or not, it does not prove that Jesus advocated the use of force.



Dan---There are many sources showing the Romans returning weapons to their owners after they swore allegiance to Rome, even online. I have seen one book that had greater detail, written in 1947, but it is missing from the library, at the moment.


If there are many, maybe you could post some.




Dan---MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

LK 19:42 Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things [which belong] unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

LK 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

Where does Jesus say "never use force"?



This is what am talking about Dan, You posted the accounts of the garden from Mark and John to try and support your case, then when I ask you where any of those passages shows Jesus advocating the use of force, You post a completely different set of passages. Where do the passages that you posted regarding the events in the garden show Jesus advocating the use of force?


Dan---And yet, if you don't accept what Jesus is saying the Law is not ended for you.

ROM 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

It is righteousness that a murderer be killed or prevented by his victim. Praise God, it is poetic justice!


Not according to Christ.


Dan---Prove your premise! Show me a verse where the plain text is overwhelmed by context. You write as if it is fact, show all of us that are watching.

Dan, it's a simple yes or no question, are we to interpret Scripture as we please regardless of the context?



Dan, you did not answer my question regarding the early church, the men who were directly taught by the apostles, men like Clement of Rome, who was the companion of Paul, or Ignatius, or Polycarp who were disciples of the apostle John, they did not advocate the use of force for any reason at all. The apostles handed the church off to these men, surly the apostles knew these men held this position, surly if it was not what the apostles had taught them, the apostles would have corrected them. Surly someone would in the 325 years have said, hey, this is not what the apostles taught, if the early church was incorrect on the matter. If the apostles knew the gospel and what Jesus taught, and they were capable of teaching that to those to whom they took the gospel, then we must conclude that what the early church taught was in fact what they were taught by the apostles.
Here are a few quotes from some of hte early church writers,
Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2

Clement of Alexandria
Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence the delinquencies of sins. For it is not those that abstain from wickedness from compulsion, but those that abstain from choice, that God crowns.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
For the wont of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the glaive, and to pluck out "eye for eye," and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. (compare Exodus 21:24-25; Leviticus 24:17-22; Deuteronomy 19:11-21; Matthew 5:38) But the new law’s wont was to point to clemency, and to convert to tranquillity the pristine ferocity of "glaives" and "lances," and to remodel the pristine execution of "war" upon the rivals and foes of the law into the pacific actions of "ploughing" and "tilling" the land.

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
Well, but Christ plainly teaches a new kind of patience, when He actually prohibits the reprisals which the Creator permitted in requiring "an eye for an eye,398II-7-398 and a tooth for a tooth," (Exodus 21:24) and bids us, on the contrary, "to him who smiteth us on the one cheek, to offer the other also, and to give up our coat to him that taketh away our cloak."

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4


This is a quote from a Roman critic writing against Christianinty.
"They have also," says he, "a precept to this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one who injures us, or, as he expresses it, ‘Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also.’

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 4

Commodianus
In like manner, as the statement is false "that the Hebrews, being (originally) Egyptians, dated the commencement (of their political existence) from the time of their rebellion," so also is this, "that in the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish state, and became His followers;" for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source, to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may say regarding the exodus from Egypt., that it is a miracle if a whole nation at once adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, "As they went forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not understand." (cf. Psalm 81:5)

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 6

Theonas of Alexandria
Do no one an injury at any time, and provoke no one to anger. If an injury is done to you, look to Jesus Christ; and even as ye desire that He may remit your transgressions, do ye also forgive them theirs;

Title : The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7

Lactantius
But since wisdom has been given to man alone, that he may understand God, and this alone makes the difference between man and the dumb animals, justice itself is bound up in two duties. He owes the one to God as to a father, the other to man as to a brother; for we are produced by the same God. Therefore it has been deservedly and rightly said, that wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human affairs. For it is right that we should know what we owe to God, and what to man; namely, to God religion, to man affection. But the former belongs to wisdom, the latter to virtue; and justice comprises both. If, therefore, it is evident that man is born to justice, it is necessary that the just man should be subject to evils, that he may exercise the virtue with which he is endued. For virtue is the enduring of evils. He will avoid pleasures as an evil: he will despise riches, because they are frail; and if he has them, he will liberally bestow them, to preserve the wretched: he will not be desirous of honours, because they are short and transitory; he will do injury to no one; if he shall suffer, he will not retaliate; and he will not take vengeance upon one who plunders his property. For he will deem it unlawful to injure a man; and if there shall be any one who would compel him to depart from God, he will not refuse tortures nor death. Thus it will come to pass, that he must necessarily live in poverty and lowliness, and in insults, or even tortures.

This is just a small sample of quotes from the writings of the Ante-Nicene writers, clearly they did not use violence in self defense. These quotes do not even deal with their stance on war.

dan
Feb 22nd 2009, 04:52 AM
Butch5 Dan, I have shown you where Jesus changed the law.

In case it isn't apparent to you, that's not the same thing.

The premise that you contend is that, as I understand it, the context of some part of the NT destroys the plain text of what Jesus said. Specifically, if I understand correctly, the verses that I use to claim that Jesus advocated the use of force in some instances.

I totally disagree and would like you to prove it.

Jesus would not have bothered to say what He said insincerely. The fact that He says these things indicates that they are to be taken seriously, and are as important as every other point in the Bible.

Therefore, these verses have equal weight and must attenuate some other verses effect, perhaps, to have power of their own.

Isn't that obvious to you?


OK, Jesus changed the law. When you use force, how are you resisting evil? Loving your enemies? Blessing them that persecute you? Doing good to them that hate you? Praying for them that despitefully use you?

I'm sure you meant to say, "How are you not resisting evil?"

Because you only use force in preventing homicide or grave bodily harm like loss of a foot or hand etc. Those are not covered in Jesus' terms.

Although, actually praying while your in the act of using force may be difficult, it's certainly possible.


Whether this is the case or not, it does not prove that Jesus advocated the use of force.

Jesus advocated the use of force when He told us to do the Father's Will, when He told us to own weapons, and when He told us to do unto murderers as they would do unto us:

GEN 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.


If there are many, maybe you could post some.

I'll google a little for you. I lost my Roman Research a while back.


This is what am talking about Dan, You posted the accounts of the garden from Mark and John to try and support your case, then when I ask you where any of those passages shows Jesus advocating the use of force, You post a completely different set of passages. Where do the passages that you posted regarding the events in the garden show Jesus advocating the use of force?

Actually, I tried to show you that the other Gospels don't support your side. In fact they support mine. Perhaps you should read it again.


Not according to Christ.

Of course, I disagree:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.


Butch5 Dan, you did not answer my question regarding the early church, the men who were directly taught by the apostles, men like Clement of Rome, who was the companion of Paul, or Ignatius, or Polycarp who were disciples of the apostle John, they did not advocate the use of force for any reason at all. The apostles handed the church off to these men, surly the apostles knew these men held this position, surly if it was not what the apostles had taught them, the apostles would have corrected them.

Yes, I wanted to read a little about them, first.

I can only assume that either the Apostles didn't teach as they had been taught (doubtful), or that, in the interests of keeping control of the population, those that were taught refused to pass it on.

Jesus taught you to buy and carry a sword, and that arms bring peace.

It will be quite interesting, in the end, to see who is rejected by Christ:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

MT 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
MT 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
MT 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.


This is just a small sample of quotes from the writings of the Ante-Nicene writers, clearly they did not use violence in self defense. These quotes do not even deal with their stance on war.

For them to even have a stance against war would be against God and Christ:

PROV 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors [there is] safety.

HEB 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Butch5
Feb 22nd 2009, 08:19 PM
In case it isn't apparent to you, that's not the same thing.

The premise that you contend is that, as I understand it, the context of some part of the NT destroys the plain text of what Jesus said. Specifically, if I understand correctly, the verses that I use to claim that Jesus advocated the use of force in some instances.

I totally disagree and would like you to prove it.

Jesus would not have bothered to say what He said insincerely. The fact that He says these things indicates that they are to be taken seriously, and are as important as every other point in the Bible.

Therefore, these verses have equal weight and must attenuate some other verses effect, perhaps, to have power of their own.

Isn't that obvious to you?



I'm sure you meant to say, "How are you not resisting evil?"

Because you only use force in preventing homicide or grave bodily harm like loss of a foot or hand etc. Those are not covered in Jesus' terms.

Although, actually praying while your in the act of using force may be difficult, it's certainly possible.



Jesus advocated the use of force when He told us to do the Father's Will, when He told us to own weapons, and when He told us to do unto murderers as they would do unto us:

GEN 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

LK 11:21 When a strong man armed keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

REV 18:6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.



I'll google a little for you. I lost my Roman Research a while back.



Actually, I tried to show you that the other Gospels don't support your side. In fact they support mine. Perhaps you should read it again.



Of course, I disagree:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.



Yes, I wanted to read a little about them, first.

I can only assume that either the Apostles didn't teach as they had been taught (doubtful), or that, in the interests of keeping control of the population, those that were taught refused to pass it on.

Jesus taught you to buy and carry a sword, and that arms bring peace.

It will be quite interesting, in the end, to see who is rejected by Christ:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. (Matt 7:21)

Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? (Matt 7:22)

And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (Matt 7:23)

Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: (Matt 7:24)

MT 12:35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
MT 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
MT 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.



For them to even have a stance against war would be against God and Christ:

PROV 24:6 For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors [there is] safety.

HEB 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Dan, you keep taking these verses, they are not in context, they do not support your claim unless you can show where the verses are teaching what you claim. Just because Jesus told the disciples to take two swords does not teach that Jesus was advocating the use of force. Jesus also said to the woman, it is not right to give the children's food to dogs, was Jesus teaching that the gentiles were dogs? Jesus said to some of the Jews You are of your father the devil, does that mean that all of the Jews were the children of the devil? Even the believers? YOU can just take one statement where Jesus told them to take a sword and then claim a teaching from it, that is why the church is in the mess that it is today, people doing just that. If you can go through Jesus' teachings and show me where He is teaching the disciples that it is OK to use force for any reason then we have a conversation, otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

dan
Feb 23rd 2009, 07:41 AM
Dan, you keep taking these verses, they are not in context, they do not support your claim unless you can show where the verses are teaching what you claim. Just because Jesus told the disciples to take two swords does not teach that Jesus was advocating the use of force.

Does it not occur to you that Jesus had any number of laws that He could have broken to be considered "among the transgressors" but chose this one? If you believe that He did it randomly and without cause, I wonder at your lack of wonder.:lol:

Then, as a coupe' de grasse, does He say your message plainly, "don't use force"? No, He says:

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

I love it!


YOU can just take one statement where Jesus told them to take a sword and then claim a teaching from it, that is why the church is in the mess that it is today, people doing just that. If you can go through Jesus' teachings and show me where He is teaching the disciples that it is OK to use force for any reason then we have a conversation, otherwise there is nothing to discuss.

Of course I disagree.

The reason that churches are in trouble today is that they teach an incomprehensible message:

All the people that should be held up as good examples and heroes are evil because they kill. Most especially, soldiers and policeman.

They have alienated their heroes. They have prevented good Christian people from entering into these professions. The Christians that do have a sense of direction about these matters avoid the church for their incorrect attitude.

That means less revenue for the church. That means less church influence in the community. So, the church's decline is assured, the division between good Christian people and government agencies is assured, and growing.

I thank you for your assistance in bringing out these points. I believe our conversation has been very beneficial.