Jump to content
IGNORED

Pastor claims bible says guns are ok


ayin jade

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  30
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,373
  • Content Per Day:  0.76
  • Reputation:   683
  • Days Won:  22
  • Joined:  02/28/2012
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

I think the thread has derailed over issues of faith and what is apparently perceived as a lack of faith from those who believe you can defend yourself.

 

I am no longer seeing guns as the issue here.  I think the issue may have been defense from point a onwards...after all, that is what a Christian would presumably be

using a gun for?

 

 

As the OP Im ok with the topic derailing. It has been and continues to be an interesting discussion.

 

 

 

I actually think the derailment is the real issue.

 

whoops...came back to clarify because reading it now, it seems I am saying what I am not saying (confusing sorry)

 

I meant that the turn taken may be the real issue...not the derailment

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,113
  • Content Per Day:  0.26
  • Reputation:   442
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  06/06/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/17/1975

By the way, I almost forgot to post this.

 

Luke 22:36-38

 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.

37 For 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.

38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

 

The swords were not for self-defense but for fulfillment of prophecy in Isaiah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,875
  • Content Per Day:  0.71
  • Reputation:   1,336
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  03/13/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

See in your response is my problem and why I remain unconvinced. You as well as others keep using that same verse, that same 1 verse and that's it. It's like this entire POV is built around the 1 verse about Jesus saying go buy a Sword. I have given multiple verses that states we are not to respond to violence with violence but that we are called to peace, and every single time I'm told I'm mishandling scripture. Remembering that Jesus said

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Remembering Jesus said the above can you show me where Jesus or the 12 or Paul taught we are to respond to violence with violence in the bible. I ask in the bible and not opinion because every verse I give I am told I am mishandling and using wrong. Also, remember we are not held to the Old testament covenant but the New. We don't sacrifice Animals, or take ritual baths before entering the temple of God. We live under a New and better covenant where Jesus said the above and left us the example to follow of never responding to violence with violence.

 

Respond to this how you like, I mean it's not my place to tell you how to post. However, with all due respect I don't want to respond to opinion, I am looking for scripture. For me, I look at things like this and I ask myself, ' Why do I believe what I do about violence and guns or whatever the subject is?'. " Is my beliefs based on scripture or Personal preference,  opinion, tradition, fear, or any other outside source other than the bible"?  Because if I hold on to a belief that is not based on scripture, from Genesis to revelation then I must let it go. Lastly, I honestly believe that the Pro-gun responses I have been receiving are ignoring a lot of scripture about us being called to peace. I also believe it's ignored for a good reason.  If you admit we are called to peace and not to respond with violence to violence, then the burden to prove an exception falls to you. Please show me in the bible where Jesus taught that we are to respond to violence with violence.

 

 

Added later----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Remembering we are under the New Testament, which was sealed with the Crucifixion. I keep hearing about defending oneself.  Can you show me someone defending themselves taking the Life of the attacker in the New testament? Their is plenty of times were the 12 or Paul's life was in danger. How come they never responded with violence ? How come they never defended themselves? Why are we better than them, that we get to love our life and defend ourselves and they didn't?

 

How come there is such a contrast from how the Old Testament Saints responded to violence compared to how the New Testament Saints responded to violence?

 

 

While we are under the New Covenant, the New Covenant and the New Testament are not entirely equal. The book of Matthew is primarily written to the Jewish people who were under the Mosaic Covenant. So much of Matthew is discussing an interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant. The Jewish people expected the Messiah would expound on scriptures and the law. Until Jesus death and resurrection, the New Covenant was not in force, and Jesus had to be obedient to the laws of the Mosaic covenant, born a Jew, or He would have been a sinner, as He was born under the Mosaic covenant.  

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Jesus is expounding on the Mosaic law and the understanding and interpretation as well as the application of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law goes into fine detail about various things, such as a person who damaged or hurt a person. If a person damaged or hurt and animal etc. The penalty for this kind of damage or injury must be of equal weight. If a person kills your ox, the penalty must be in equal proportion. And eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If a person killed your ox, then equal proportion would be paying for the value of the ox, or replacing the ox. If you put an eye out of the ox, that would devalue the ox, so a reasonable reparation must be paid.

 

This is entire discussion is in reaction to crimes and judges decisions in court cases. The Mosaic covenant included how to appoint judges and taking cases to the judges, what is sufficient evidence etc. There are sections of the law which allow for a family appointed avenger in very narrow circumstances but, generally speaking, the Mosaic law did not allow for revenge. Even to appoint an avenger required the judges to determine that the violation of a particular law allowed for the avenger, and that avenger had limitations according to the law.

 

Turning the other cheek is saying, do not seek personal vengence, but allow the courts to judge the matter.

 

The New Covenant is of course different then the Mosaic covenant, as it does not allow or include the appointment of judges for a court system within Christianity. A Christian is not to sue another Christian in civil court if they accidently damage our ox. Ideally, we should be able to work it out, and if not, other Christians are to judge the matter, and not secular courts. But, we are to be obedient to the secular laws of the land. If a person steals, that is against the law. If a person murders, that is against the law. These are matters for government law and the courts. In the U.S., the law varies by state, but in most states, the law says that a person who illegally enters a home with a weapon, the owner of the home is permitted to defend themselves, their family and their property, as long as they are not using excessive force.

 

But, the verse you are quoting is not NT law as opposed to OT law. It is an explanation of the correct application of OT law. It mentions, what you have heard. What the people heard was the application of the Mosaic law, and Jesus is refining that interpretation.

 

In the NT, several different members or leaders of the Roman army are mentioned. These centurions and others came to Jesus and believed on Jesus. Jesus granted their requests. The officers in the Roman army of course carried weapons, and financed those beneath them, providing weapons. Jesus never told them to stop carrying weapons or to change professions. In the early church, there were many members of the Roman army which became Christian. No where in scripture does it say to cease being a member of the army. I wish I could remember, but I need to search some books to find which one, but one of the cities visited by Paul was a city known to be a big retirement community for ex-officers.

 

In the NT, and in the history of the Church, it is standard practice that when a person goes out as a missionary, they go un-armed, as their primary purpose is to share the gospel. They are called to put their lives on the line, for the sake of the gospel. Hundreds of missionaries have died on the mission field, killed by those to whom they are preaching the gospel. Most missionaries take a pacifist stand to the people they are called to. Most of the stories in the NT, are about apostles, like Paul, who were sent out as missionaries to share the gospel. Yet, those who are saved by these missionaries, are not told to disarm themselves. They are not told to change professions. It is only those sent out to share the gospel to a specific group of people, who disarm and die for the cause of bringing the gospel to 'heathen'.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,113
  • Content Per Day:  0.26
  • Reputation:   442
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  06/06/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/17/1975

 

 

See in your response is my problem and why I remain unconvinced. You as well as others keep using that same verse, that same 1 verse and that's it. It's like this entire POV is built around the 1 verse about Jesus saying go buy a Sword. I have given multiple verses that states we are not to respond to violence with violence but that we are called to peace, and every single time I'm told I'm mishandling scripture. Remembering that Jesus said

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Remembering Jesus said the above can you show me where Jesus or the 12 or Paul taught we are to respond to violence with violence in the bible. I ask in the bible and not opinion because every verse I give I am told I am mishandling and using wrong. Also, remember we are not held to the Old testament covenant but the New. We don't sacrifice Animals, or take ritual baths before entering the temple of God. We live under a New and better covenant where Jesus said the above and left us the example to follow of never responding to violence with violence.

 

Respond to this how you like, I mean it's not my place to tell you how to post. However, with all due respect I don't want to respond to opinion, I am looking for scripture. For me, I look at things like this and I ask myself, ' Why do I believe what I do about violence and guns or whatever the subject is?'. " Is my beliefs based on scripture or Personal preference,  opinion, tradition, fear, or any other outside source other than the bible"?  Because if I hold on to a belief that is not based on scripture, from Genesis to revelation then I must let it go. Lastly, I honestly believe that the Pro-gun responses I have been receiving are ignoring a lot of scripture about us being called to peace. I also believe it's ignored for a good reason.  If you admit we are called to peace and not to respond with violence to violence, then the burden to prove an exception falls to you. Please show me in the bible where Jesus taught that we are to respond to violence with violence.

 

 

Added later----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Remembering we are under the New Testament, which was sealed with the Crucifixion. I keep hearing about defending oneself.  Can you show me someone defending themselves taking the Life of the attacker in the New testament? Their is plenty of times were the 12 or Paul's life was in danger. How come they never responded with violence ? How come they never defended themselves? Why are we better than them, that we get to love our life and defend ourselves and they didn't?

 

How come there is such a contrast from how the Old Testament Saints responded to violence compared to how the New Testament Saints responded to violence?

 

 

While we are under the New Covenant, the New Covenant and the New Testament are not entirely equal. The book of Matthew is primarily written to the Jewish people who were under the Mosaic Covenant. So much of Matthew is discussing an interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant. The Jewish people expected the Messiah would expound on scriptures and the law. Until Jesus death and resurrection, the New Covenant was not in force, and Jesus had to be obedient to the laws of the Mosaic covenant, born a Jew, or He would have been a sinner, as He was born under the Mosaic covenant.  

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Jesus is expounding on the Mosaic law and the understanding and interpretation as well as the application of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law goes into fine detail about various things, such as a person who damaged or hurt a person. If a person damaged or hurt and animal etc. The penalty for this kind of damage or injury must be of equal weight. If a person kills your ox, the penalty must be in equal proportion. And eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If a person killed your ox, then equal proportion would be paying for the value of the ox, or replacing the ox. If you put an eye out of the ox, that would devalue the ox, so a reasonable reparation must be paid.

 

This is entire discussion is in reaction to crimes and judges decisions in court cases. The Mosaic covenant included how to appoint judges and taking cases to the judges, what is sufficient evidence etc. There are sections of the law which allow for a family appointed avenger in very narrow circumstances but, generally speaking, the Mosaic law did not allow for revenge. Even to appoint an avenger required the judges to determine that the violation of a particular law allowed for the avenger, and that avenger had limitations according to the law.

 

Turning the other cheek is saying, do not seek personal vengence, but allow the courts to judge the matter.

 

The New Covenant is of course different then the Mosaic covenant, as it does not allow or include the appointment of judges for a court system within Christianity. A Christian is not to sue another Christian in civil court if they accidently damage our ox. Ideally, we should be able to work it out, and if not, other Christians are to judge the matter, and not secular courts. But, we are to be obedient to the secular laws of the land. If a person steals, that is against the law. If a person murders, that is against the law. These are matters for government law and the courts. In the U.S., the law varies by state, but in most states, the law says that a person who illegally enters a home with a weapon, the owner of the home is permitted to defend themselves, their family and their property, as long as they are not using excessive force.

 

But, the verse you are quoting is not NT law as opposed to OT law. It is an explanation of the correct application of OT law. It mentions, what you have heard. What the people heard was the application of the Mosaic law, and Jesus is refining that interpretation.

 

In the NT, several different members or leaders of the Roman army are mentioned. These centurions and others came to Jesus and believed on Jesus. Jesus granted their requests. The officers in the Roman army of course carried weapons, and financed those beneath them, providing weapons. Jesus never told them to stop carrying weapons or to change professions. In the early church, there were many members of the Roman army which became Christian. No where in scripture does it say to cease being a member of the army. I wish I could remember, but I need to search some books to find which one, but one of the cities visited by Paul was a city known to be a big retirement community for ex-officers.

 

In the NT, and in the history of the Church, it is standard practice that when a person goes out as a missionary, they go un-armed, as their primary purpose is to share the gospel. They are called to put their lives on the line, for the sake of the gospel. Hundreds of missionaries have died on the mission field, killed by those to whom they are preaching the gospel. Most missionaries take a pacifist stand to the people they are called to. Most of the stories in the NT, are about apostles, like Paul, who were sent out as missionaries to share the gospel. Yet, those who are saved by these missionaries, are not told to disarm themselves. They are not told to change professions. It is only those sent out to share the gospel to a specific group of people, who disarm and die for the cause of bringing the gospel to 'heathen'.        

 

Very well written response. You make valid points concerning the verse I used and will pray over them. My overall point remains unchanged. Jesus didn't promote violence. Jesus called for us to respond peacefully and not respond to violence with more violence. Nowhere in scripture does it say to respond peacefully is only for missionary's, and that the words of Christ in regards to peace doesn't apply to us in our everyday lives. If it doesn't affect our personal lives then what is the point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  20
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,875
  • Content Per Day:  0.71
  • Reputation:   1,336
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  03/13/2013
  • Status:  Offline

 

 

 

See in your response is my problem and why I remain unconvinced. You as well as others keep using that same verse, that same 1 verse and that's it. It's like this entire POV is built around the 1 verse about Jesus saying go buy a Sword. I have given multiple verses that states we are not to respond to violence with violence but that we are called to peace, and every single time I'm told I'm mishandling scripture. Remembering that Jesus said

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Remembering Jesus said the above can you show me where Jesus or the 12 or Paul taught we are to respond to violence with violence in the bible. I ask in the bible and not opinion because every verse I give I am told I am mishandling and using wrong. Also, remember we are not held to the Old testament covenant but the New. We don't sacrifice Animals, or take ritual baths before entering the temple of God. We live under a New and better covenant where Jesus said the above and left us the example to follow of never responding to violence with violence.

 

Respond to this how you like, I mean it's not my place to tell you how to post. However, with all due respect I don't want to respond to opinion, I am looking for scripture. For me, I look at things like this and I ask myself, ' Why do I believe what I do about violence and guns or whatever the subject is?'. " Is my beliefs based on scripture or Personal preference,  opinion, tradition, fear, or any other outside source other than the bible"?  Because if I hold on to a belief that is not based on scripture, from Genesis to revelation then I must let it go. Lastly, I honestly believe that the Pro-gun responses I have been receiving are ignoring a lot of scripture about us being called to peace. I also believe it's ignored for a good reason.  If you admit we are called to peace and not to respond with violence to violence, then the burden to prove an exception falls to you. Please show me in the bible where Jesus taught that we are to respond to violence with violence.

 

 

Added later----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Remembering we are under the New Testament, which was sealed with the Crucifixion. I keep hearing about defending oneself.  Can you show me someone defending themselves taking the Life of the attacker in the New testament? Their is plenty of times were the 12 or Paul's life was in danger. How come they never responded with violence ? How come they never defended themselves? Why are we better than them, that we get to love our life and defend ourselves and they didn't?

 

How come there is such a contrast from how the Old Testament Saints responded to violence compared to how the New Testament Saints responded to violence?

 

 

While we are under the New Covenant, the New Covenant and the New Testament are not entirely equal. The book of Matthew is primarily written to the Jewish people who were under the Mosaic Covenant. So much of Matthew is discussing an interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant. The Jewish people expected the Messiah would expound on scriptures and the law. Until Jesus death and resurrection, the New Covenant was not in force, and Jesus had to be obedient to the laws of the Mosaic covenant, born a Jew, or He would have been a sinner, as He was born under the Mosaic covenant.  

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Jesus is expounding on the Mosaic law and the understanding and interpretation as well as the application of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law goes into fine detail about various things, such as a person who damaged or hurt a person. If a person damaged or hurt and animal etc. The penalty for this kind of damage or injury must be of equal weight. If a person kills your ox, the penalty must be in equal proportion. And eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If a person killed your ox, then equal proportion would be paying for the value of the ox, or replacing the ox. If you put an eye out of the ox, that would devalue the ox, so a reasonable reparation must be paid.

 

This is entire discussion is in reaction to crimes and judges decisions in court cases. The Mosaic covenant included how to appoint judges and taking cases to the judges, what is sufficient evidence etc. There are sections of the law which allow for a family appointed avenger in very narrow circumstances but, generally speaking, the Mosaic law did not allow for revenge. Even to appoint an avenger required the judges to determine that the violation of a particular law allowed for the avenger, and that avenger had limitations according to the law.

 

Turning the other cheek is saying, do not seek personal vengence, but allow the courts to judge the matter.

 

The New Covenant is of course different then the Mosaic covenant, as it does not allow or include the appointment of judges for a court system within Christianity. A Christian is not to sue another Christian in civil court if they accidently damage our ox. Ideally, we should be able to work it out, and if not, other Christians are to judge the matter, and not secular courts. But, we are to be obedient to the secular laws of the land. If a person steals, that is against the law. If a person murders, that is against the law. These are matters for government law and the courts. In the U.S., the law varies by state, but in most states, the law says that a person who illegally enters a home with a weapon, the owner of the home is permitted to defend themselves, their family and their property, as long as they are not using excessive force.

 

But, the verse you are quoting is not NT law as opposed to OT law. It is an explanation of the correct application of OT law. It mentions, what you have heard. What the people heard was the application of the Mosaic law, and Jesus is refining that interpretation.

 

In the NT, several different members or leaders of the Roman army are mentioned. These centurions and others came to Jesus and believed on Jesus. Jesus granted their requests. The officers in the Roman army of course carried weapons, and financed those beneath them, providing weapons. Jesus never told them to stop carrying weapons or to change professions. In the early church, there were many members of the Roman army which became Christian. No where in scripture does it say to cease being a member of the army. I wish I could remember, but I need to search some books to find which one, but one of the cities visited by Paul was a city known to be a big retirement community for ex-officers.

 

In the NT, and in the history of the Church, it is standard practice that when a person goes out as a missionary, they go un-armed, as their primary purpose is to share the gospel. They are called to put their lives on the line, for the sake of the gospel. Hundreds of missionaries have died on the mission field, killed by those to whom they are preaching the gospel. Most missionaries take a pacifist stand to the people they are called to. Most of the stories in the NT, are about apostles, like Paul, who were sent out as missionaries to share the gospel. Yet, those who are saved by these missionaries, are not told to disarm themselves. They are not told to change professions. It is only those sent out to share the gospel to a specific group of people, who disarm and die for the cause of bringing the gospel to 'heathen'.        

 

Very well written response. You make valid points concerning the verse I used and will pray over them. My overall point remains unchanged. Jesus didn't promote violence. Jesus called for us to respond peacefully and not respond to violence with more violence. Nowhere in scripture does it say to respond peacefully is only for missionary's, and that the words of Christ in regards to peace doesn't apply to us in our everyday lives. If it doesn't affect our personal lives then what is the point?

 

 

There was a time I took a more pacifist view. But, then I questioned the idea of being a total pacifist, or was there ever a biblical and moral justification for using violence. 

 

Clearly, to me, a missionary does not use violence against the people to whom they are called to share the gospel.

 

Yet, going to a more modern example, had I been alive during WW2 and the Nazi attempted annhilation of the Jewish people, would it be right to be a pacifist if it means that people are abused, tortured, murdered? Hitler was determined to kill all Jewish people. He had a huge army willing to obey him, and millions of innocent helpless people were being slaughtered. Is it right or wrong to pick up a weapon, to save people. For me, I concluded that being a pacifist in that situation, promising to pray for those being slaughtered but not lifting a finger to stop the agression, would be as wrong as wishing a starving person blessings, and not providing food.

 

So, to me, there are times to be a pacifist, and there are times when it is right to protect others.

 

Eccliastes 3 is one of my favorite verses, so the question would be, even though this is OT, does it apply today?

 

1 To everything there is a season,

A time for every purpose under heaven:

2 A time to be born,

And a time to die;

A time to plant,

And a time to pluck what is planted;

3 A time to kill,

And a time to heal;

A time to break down,

And a time to build up;

4 A time to weep,

And a time to laugh;

A time to mourn,

And a time to dance;

5 A time to cast away stones,

And a time to gather stones;

A time to embrace,

And a time to refrain from embracing;

6 A time to gain,

And a time to lose;

A time to keep,

And a time to throw away;

7 A time to tear,

And a time to sew;

A time to keep silence,

And a time to speak;

8 A time to love,

And a time to hate;

A time of war,

And a time of peace

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  104
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,458
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   729
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  02/09/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/31/1950

 

 

See in your response is my problem and why I remain unconvinced. You as well as others keep using that same verse, that same 1 verse and that's it. It's like this entire POV is built around the 1 verse about Jesus saying go buy a Sword. I have given multiple verses that states we are not to respond to violence with violence but that we are called to peace, and every single time I'm told I'm mishandling scripture. Remembering that Jesus said

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Remembering Jesus said the above can you show me where Jesus or the 12 or Paul taught we are to respond to violence with violence in the bible. I ask in the bible and not opinion because every verse I give I am told I am mishandling and using wrong. Also, remember we are not held to the Old testament covenant but the New. We don't sacrifice Animals, or take ritual baths before entering the temple of God. We live under a New and better covenant where Jesus said the above and left us the example to follow of never responding to violence with violence.

 

Respond to this how you like, I mean it's not my place to tell you how to post. However, with all due respect I don't want to respond to opinion, I am looking for scripture. For me, I look at things like this and I ask myself, ' Why do I believe what I do about violence and guns or whatever the subject is?'. " Is my beliefs based on scripture or Personal preference,  opinion, tradition, fear, or any other outside source other than the bible"?  Because if I hold on to a belief that is not based on scripture, from Genesis to revelation then I must let it go. Lastly, I honestly believe that the Pro-gun responses I have been receiving are ignoring a lot of scripture about us being called to peace. I also believe it's ignored for a good reason.  If you admit we are called to peace and not to respond with violence to violence, then the burden to prove an exception falls to you. Please show me in the bible where Jesus taught that we are to respond to violence with violence.

 

 

Added later----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. Remembering we are under the New Testament, which was sealed with the Crucifixion. I keep hearing about defending oneself.  Can you show me someone defending themselves taking the Life of the attacker in the New testament? Their is plenty of times were the 12 or Paul's life was in danger. How come they never responded with violence ? How come they never defended themselves? Why are we better than them, that we get to love our life and defend ourselves and they didn't?

 

How come there is such a contrast from how the Old Testament Saints responded to violence compared to how the New Testament Saints responded to violence?

 

 

While we are under the New Covenant, the New Covenant and the New Testament are not entirely equal. The book of Matthew is primarily written to the Jewish people who were under the Mosaic Covenant. So much of Matthew is discussing an interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant. The Jewish people expected the Messiah would expound on scriptures and the law. Until Jesus death and resurrection, the New Covenant was not in force, and Jesus had to be obedient to the laws of the Mosaic covenant, born a Jew, or He would have been a sinner, as He was born under the Mosaic covenant.  

 

Matthew 5:38-39

You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth'. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also 

 

Jesus is expounding on the Mosaic law and the understanding and interpretation as well as the application of the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law goes into fine detail about various things, such as a person who damaged or hurt a person. If a person damaged or hurt and animal etc. The penalty for this kind of damage or injury must be of equal weight. If a person kills your ox, the penalty must be in equal proportion. And eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. If a person killed your ox, then equal proportion would be paying for the value of the ox, or replacing the ox. If you put an eye out of the ox, that would devalue the ox, so a reasonable reparation must be paid.

 

This is entire discussion is in reaction to crimes and judges decisions in court cases. The Mosaic covenant included how to appoint judges and taking cases to the judges, what is sufficient evidence etc. There are sections of the law which allow for a family appointed avenger in very narrow circumstances but, generally speaking, the Mosaic law did not allow for revenge. Even to appoint an avenger required the judges to determine that the violation of a particular law allowed for the avenger, and that avenger had limitations according to the law.

 

Turning the other cheek is saying, do not seek personal vengence, but allow the courts to judge the matter.

 

The New Covenant is of course different then the Mosaic covenant, as it does not allow or include the appointment of judges for a court system within Christianity. A Christian is not to sue another Christian in civil court if they accidently damage our ox. Ideally, we should be able to work it out, and if not, other Christians are to judge the matter, and not secular courts. But, we are to be obedient to the secular laws of the land. If a person steals, that is against the law. If a person murders, that is against the law. These are matters for government law and the courts. In the U.S., the law varies by state, but in most states, the law says that a person who illegally enters a home with a weapon, the owner of the home is permitted to defend themselves, their family and their property, as long as they are not using excessive force.

 

But, the verse you are quoting is not NT law as opposed to OT law. It is an explanation of the correct application of OT law. It mentions, what you have heard. What the people heard was the application of the Mosaic law, and Jesus is refining that interpretation.

 

In the NT, several different members or leaders of the Roman army are mentioned. These centurions and others came to Jesus and believed on Jesus. Jesus granted their requests. The officers in the Roman army of course carried weapons, and financed those beneath them, providing weapons. Jesus never told them to stop carrying weapons or to change professions. In the early church, there were many members of the Roman army which became Christian. No where in scripture does it say to cease being a member of the army. I wish I could remember, but I need to search some books to find which one, but one of the cities visited by Paul was a city known to be a big retirement community for ex-officers.

 

In the NT, and in the history of the Church, it is standard practice that when a person goes out as a missionary, they go un-armed, as their primary purpose is to share the gospel. They are called to put their lives on the line, for the sake of the gospel. Hundreds of missionaries have died on the mission field, killed by those to whom they are preaching the gospel. Most missionaries take a pacifist stand to the people they are called to. Most of the stories in the NT, are about apostles, like Paul, who were sent out as missionaries to share the gospel. Yet, those who are saved by these missionaries, are not told to disarm themselves. They are not told to change professions. It is only those sent out to share the gospel to a specific group of people, who disarm and die for the cause of bringing the gospel to 'heathen'.        

Antioch Of Pisidia

Acts 13

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,113
  • Content Per Day:  0.26
  • Reputation:   442
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  06/06/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/17/1975

So, to me, there are times to be a pacifist, and there are times when it is right to protect others.

 

Eccliastes 3 is one of my favorite verses, so the question would be, even though this is OT, does it apply today?

 

1 To everything there is a season,

A time for every purpose under heaven:

I condensed what you said, but I promise I read it.

 

 This may surprise you but I'm not a total pacifist. I believe it is wrong to respond to violence with more violence, unless you are being led by God. There is a difference between acting in the flesh and acting in the spirit. We don't always know the difference in the heat of the moment. An example of a divinely inspired aggressive act would be the Arab-Israel war of 1948 and the 6 day war in 1967. I believe both were divinely inspired and the will of God for the purpose of bring Israel home and fulfilling scripture. It's not my place to determine if God has spoken something to another or not. Jesus didn't teach violence or war, but love and peace. To say that Jesus taught to retaliate when struck, hurt or wronged is just not the gospel I read. But we are told to obey and that if we love him we will obey all that he commands us to do. He has told Israel to go to war many times. My point being if we are responding to violence against us by lashing out in the flesh with more violence then we are wrong. However,   if we are responding to violence against us by taking it to God and /or following the leading of the Holy Spirit in the moment then we are in line with scripture. But Jesus nor the bible teach that we are to respond to violence with more violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  29
  • Topic Count:  593
  • Topics Per Day:  0.08
  • Content Count:  55,875
  • Content Per Day:  7.55
  • Reputation:   27,626
  • Days Won:  271
  • Joined:  12/29/2003
  • Status:  Online

 

I condensed what you said, but I promise I read it.

 

 This may surprise you but I'm not a total pacifist. I believe it is wrong to respond to violence with more violence, unless you are being led by God. There is a difference between acting in the flesh and acting in the spirit. We don't always know the difference in the heat of the moment. An example of a divinely inspired aggressive act would be the Arab-Israel war of 1948 and the 6 day war in 1967. I believe both were divinely inspired and the will of God for the purpose of bring Israel home and fulfilling scripture. It's not my place to determine if God has spoken something to another or not. Jesus didn't teach violence or war, but love and peace. To say that Jesus taught to retaliate when struck, hurt or wronged is just not the gospel I read. But we are told to obey and that if we love him we will obey all that he commands us to do. He has told Israel to go to war many times. My point being if we are responding to violence against us by lashing out in the flesh with more violence then we are wrong. However,   if we are responding to violence against us by taking it to God and /or following the leading of the Holy Spirit in the moment then we are in line with scripture. But Jesus nor the bible teach that we are to respond to violence with more violence.

 

 

One question.....    would you stand by and let someone rape and kill your wife and/or kids?     Would you even stand quietly and let someone beat you and take your life?

 

Well, I guess that's two questions related.

Edited by other one
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  62
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,113
  • Content Per Day:  0.26
  • Reputation:   442
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  06/06/2012
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  10/17/1975

 

 

I condensed what you said, but I promise I read it.

 

 This may surprise you but I'm not a total pacifist. I believe it is wrong to respond to violence with more violence, unless you are being led by God. There is a difference between acting in the flesh and acting in the spirit. We don't always know the difference in the heat of the moment. An example of a divinely inspired aggressive act would be the Arab-Israel war of 1948 and the 6 day war in 1967. I believe both were divinely inspired and the will of God for the purpose of bring Israel home and fulfilling scripture. It's not my place to determine if God has spoken something to another or not. Jesus didn't teach violence or war, but love and peace. To say that Jesus taught to retaliate when struck, hurt or wronged is just not the gospel I read. But we are told to obey and that if we love him we will obey all that he commands us to do. He has told Israel to go to war many times. My point being if we are responding to violence against us by lashing out in the flesh with more violence then we are wrong. However,   if we are responding to violence against us by taking it to God and /or following the leading of the Holy Spirit in the moment then we are in line with scripture. But Jesus nor the bible teach that we are to respond to violence with more violence.

 

 

One question.....    would you stand by and let someone rape and kill your wife and/or kids?     Would you even stand quietly and let someone beat you and take your life?

 

Well, I guess that's two questions related.

 

I hope this doesn't come across as a cop-out, but I Pray that I would follow the leading of God to the best of my ability. That's all I know to say.  My now Ex-wife was raped ( when we were still married ), I was not there when it happened. At the time I was not saved. In fact I was a satanist at the time. My first response was to kill them if I ever meet them or come across them. I just can't imagine that now that I'm saved and following Jesus the reaction I should have should be the same as when I was a satanist.

Edited by firestormx
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  764
  • Topics Per Day:  0.18
  • Content Count:  7,626
  • Content Per Day:  1.82
  • Reputation:   1,559
  • Days Won:  44
  • Joined:  10/03/2012
  • Status:  Offline

If you have a question, then ask, but please don't patronize me or try to lead me around by the nose. If you have a point , just say it.

 

 

I already asked the question in post But instead of addressing the passage you seemed to get defensive. So I'll ask and try again.

We respect authority (police, military) not because they deserve it but because that is honoring God. It is a respect of the position. Not of the person. I think you are confusing it with respecting individuals who serve in that position with respecting the position of someone who represent government authorities. Some serve well. Others do not.

Regardless, the Bible tells us to respect our governing authorities. To claim that all people who serve in such capacity are ungodly or follow worldly standards is uncharitable at best. A serious judgment of an entire group of people at worst. Some love God and follow Him. Also whether we agree with their individual actions or not cops (and military) this passage tells us they deserve our respect. Do you see brother?

 

 Rom. 3:1-7

 

 

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. 7 Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

Your brother humbly in Christ.

Redeemed,

GE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...