The_Patriot21

I think, that regardless of what Peter had done, Jesus would have healed (or resurrected) the servant, and rebuked Peter on his bad timing. Goes back to time and place. We are to be peacemakers-but there is a difference between peacemaker, and pacifist, sometimes, (not always) violence is needed to maintain peace, like my signature said-true peace is not just the absence of conflict, but the presence of justice.

Thats it young lady, your grounded!

actually, it does, credit rating dropping, is a huge sign of economic downturn, on a national level. Going on a national average, in 2008 we were at a 5% unemployment rate-and its gone up as high as 9.7 and as low as 7.7 (current) since then, but on average, has been hoverying around 8%. It hasnt been improving in the least. And while, in your area you might be seeing some economic growth-which, Im happy your seeing some, on a national scale, the economy is NOT improving. Local economies may grow or decline, but they are no indicator, of national growth. Nationally, right now, our unemployment, is staying roughly the same on a national level-but if you look at the extreme amount of debt that the US government is stacking up, were only going to sink lower then we are now. So don't be fooled by local growth, local growth, is not an indicator of national growth, and if someone is telling you that nationally, our economy is growing, then someone is lying to you.

as long as you understand the false christ comes before the real Christ you will have nothing to worry about thats to be debated.

Because He was a man of war, but on the same note, why was David considered a man after Gods own heart? Yes, David was kept from building Gods temple because he was a warrior-that is true, but it is also true that he was a warrior, who fought with worldly weapons, who was described, by God, as a man after Gods own heart. God never looked down upon David for being a warrior, in fact, David did what God commanded of Him. Different people for different tasks.

I fully believe in spiritual battle. And I am not one to defend myself persay. But I do believe there is a time to take up arms in this world-as is described in the Bible, and I am prepared to do so, if the need were to arise.

I think, in time, wisdom, comes into play. I try to trust people, but at the same time, Im prepared if theyre not trustworthy. The phrase is hope for the best, prepare for the worst-cover both bases.

Still seems to me your taking scripture out of context, and ignoring others. Yes, we need to be dead to self-but the way to be dead to self, is by following His word, and His word, tells us to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and to protect our families. The ultra pacifistic approach is not Biblical. To ignore the parts of the Bible that tell us to protect the weak, and to protect our families, is not being dead to Christ-its ignoring His very word. And that is all I have to say on the matter.

mr. steven. What if God wanted to use you, to protect that innocent child, but because your refusal to take up arms that child died?

Noob, while I hold that part of what your saying is true, that that verse is telling us we are not bound by the law, but it is also stating, clearly, that we do not know what sin is, except through the law. How do we know that covetousness is sin? by the law. How do we know that adultry is sin? by the law. How do we know that murder is sin? by the law. How do we know that lying is a sin? by the law. How do we know that homosexuality is a sin? the law. We are not bound by the law, you are correct, by the law we are all condemned, we cannot uphold it, that is where grace comes in, but the law, defines what sin is. We canot take those 3 verses out of corinthians, and say we know all there is to following Christ, by those 3 verses, otherwise He would have only given us those 3 verses. No, He gave us the entire Bible, law included, to help us draw closer to Him, to walk better in His path. Like 2 Timothy 3:16 repeats, 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: So, by saying that we can just ignore the law completly, that it makes no difference and we can't learn from it, is to ignore scripture. the law is there to define what is sin, and what is not sin. By the law, we are all condemned, you are correct, by grace, we are saved. Christ did not come to do away with the law, but to fulfill it. God didn't get rid of the law, it is still in place, so are the principles of protecting our families, and those who cannot protect themselves, we are just no longer bound by it. We need to take the law, and do our best to follow it-or at least the principles of it-not because we have to to get to heaven, because then we would all fall short, but because we love God and want to serve Him, and if we truly want to serve Him, then we need to learn what pleases God, and what displeases Him-otherwords, what is sin, and what is not, and the way to do that, is by reading and learning from the entiretly of the Bible. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe, and what you don't.

and what about Romans 7:7 enoob.

no, your not answering the question noob, your dodging it. From those 3 verses, you cannot define sin. Any sin that you pull out of that, is from your own understanding. Period. You have to have the whole of the Bible, not just 3 verses. You cannot ignore scripture, period.

how do you get that from those 3 verses enoob?

blessed, I have enjoyed this discourse, discussing scripture with another believer, regardless of whether we agree 100% or not, is always refreshing, because we both learn from said discussion. Thankyou for the discussion. noob. I have explained myself several times to you. and asked you a question which you ignored. I have even answered the question you just posed several times. Now, I will not bother to respond to any more of your questions until you answer the question I posed you. From those 3 verses, what is disobedience.

I think He may have been teaching multiple points, and using them as a tool to get across a broader point yes blessed I agree with you on that point-but the mere fact that He used them and told the disciples to get them, means that He wasn't anti-weapon, if He was, then He would have been a hypocrit if He was against us owning weapons, and then told the disciples to get weapons, regardless of the point he was trying to get across. Now, Im not suggesting that Jesus is saying its a commandment that we all need to go out and buy a gun. Thats not what Im saying at all. Im saying, from that passage, that Jesus was not against the owning of swords, or against self defense. I think it fits in with the rest of the Bible-especially the verses listed above, that allows Christians to own weapons, and to use them in defense of their families or those to weak to defend themselves. If I were to use this entire passage to validate my beliefs, then I would be doing the same thing enoob is doing-Basing my entire beliefs off of one verse, and ignoring the rest of the Bible, and I would also be missing the point of the passage. Theres more to that scripture then merely owning swords-yes, they were there, no Jesus did not condemn the use of them, but theres a lot more to that passage then just that, and that passage coincides with several other passages of scripture and holds true to several Biblical values, both with self defense, but also with wisdom in using it, as well as the lesson that the answer to everything isnt the sword. Jesus uses that sword, as a lesson to what is in our heart, and that is probably the most important part I pulled out of it.

Noob I say it again, thats not the whole council of God. otherwise, there would be no reason for the rest of the Bible. I mean serious, how do you know what disobedience is without the law? answer that question from those 3 verses.

I don't see how he was speaking figuratively blessed, I really don't thats what Im saying. In those passages, the context suggests real, literal swords. There may be more to what He was trying to teach, and He certainly used the swords, I think as an example to teach, like later on with Peter, on when not to use one, but they were actual literal swords. I cannot think of anyway where they could be figurative swords in that passage without taking it completly out of context, and putting my own beliefs into it. If your seeing something Im not, then say so, but I don't see how Jesus could be talking about figurative swords here, from what Im seeing, they are actual swords-the only question is what the purpose of them being there is. And enoob. While I agree with your statement we need to live as Christ does, but your still ignoring Romans 7:7 and 2 Timothy 3:16. You can't live as Christ would, unless you know what Christ has taught. Christ has taught us a great many things-He gave us the entire Bible so that we can learn how to live like Christ. If we could follow Christ from a few verse, then there would be no need for the OT or even the law to be included in the final canon, or for romans 7:7 or 2 Timothy 3:16. The entire Bible, law and everything, is there, to help us live like Christ would. The principles of self defense, and defending others, is not a secular thing, they are Biblical principles.

Its not a rant. And it addresses them. Perhaps read what I said. We do not live under the law, we live under grace. Works, or following the law, will not get us into heaven. Thats a fact. However, the law does show us what sin is, what is appropriate and what is. Thanks, for twisting my words though.

I wasnt referring to an individuals ability to work, I was referring to our economy. You made the statement that our economy wasn't that bad. I made the statement thats why our credit rating went down. It was a bit of light sarcasm. As in, right now, our economy is so bad it is difficult to find a job, for many, regardless of their ability to work. Our economy is not great, your statement is wrong. Were not even recovering, our economy is still nose diving. So give me a break.

enoob, without the law, there is no need for grace. I like people, who always want to focus on grace, and the needing of salvation from sins, but want to ignore the very thing that defines sin-and that is the law (Romans 7:7) and ignore the fact that all scripture is profitable for reproof, for correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16) We are not bound by the law-I already stated that. But, the law does define, what is sin, and the sin, is the very reason that we need grace. So you can sit here, and ignore the OT law all you want-but your missing out on the very need for grace, and ignoring a huge part of what the Bible teaches. To ignore romans 7:7 and 2 timothy 3:16 is to ignore the very words of God.

economy. pretty darn good. Thats why Americas credit rating went from AAA to AA. its actually pretty lousy.

Im not saying that theres not problems due to coal-Im just saying, the affects from a nuclear accident, are far worse then those of a coal accident. All sources of power come with some risk.

If He was speaking figuratively in Luke 22:35-41, why did Jesus ask them if they had swords, and say that it was enough when they said yes, and why did the Apostle Peter have a sword in the garden? In any other book we read, if a person in the story asks another person if they have a sword, and they say yes, we take it literally, yet we doubt that in the Bible? food for thought. I would say, that Peters use, was in defense, maybe not self defense, but in defense of his master. Peter, was extremely loyal to Christ, he saw a threat to his master, his friend, and wanted to defend Christ. It is a noble quality. And notice, Jesus did not rebuke peter for wanting to defend Him, but you do bring out a very good point, Jesus did rebuke that instance-it was done rashly, and it wasn't in Gods plan. A weapon, is not something that should be used rashly, that much I do agree with. I believe the Bible lays it out very clear when you can use a weapon (sword, gun whatever) and violence is acceptable, and when it is not. Self defense of your family. (exodus 22:2-3) is one of them. To protect the weak and the needy, to preserve life (psalm 82:4, Proverbs 24:11, Ezekiel 33:6) And when you can't use lethal force, such as in revenge, to fulfill your own greed, etc.

well, theres some truths to what you said-we should strive for peace, and always love our neighbor, and we may even have peace in our own little circle. However, the Bible is clear-there will never be global peace until Jesus returns.

I would disagree with that blanket statement xero-about the sword being a literary device, and not a literal one. especially in the verses mentioned. In some cases, like the armor of God, it is a literary device, but others, like the sword in luke 22, the original passage at hand, it is clearly, a literal one. What defines "literal" verses a literary device, is the context. In Luke 22, Jesus tells His disciples to buy swords, He then asks if they have any, and they answer 2. It is a literal conversation. More evidence that this is literal, is that Peter used one of these swords to attack one of the priests servants. The difference between a literal sword, and a sword used figuratively, is defined by the context-while some verses, like ephesians 6:17 it is a figurative sword, used as a literary device, you can tell by the context, the sword of the initial passage-Luke 22, is an actual, literal, sword.