Pastor claims bible says guns are ok

[firestormx]

 

 

Firestorm you claim I was only using the one verse. Well, first-if you had read my entire reply you would see that I didnt-i made a very strong argument using old testament law. If you choose to ignore everything else I said that's fine-but don't sit here and say that's all I'm using.

Second yes I bring it up because no one-to date including you-has been able to refute it. You still haven't. How can a God order you to break His rules-for any reason whatsoever, and still be a just God? He can't. I don't care how you spin it Jesus won't order you to sin. So obviously owning weapons is not a sin. In fact no where in the Bible does it say that, it is not biblical. Even the verses you brought up only deal with the use of said weapons-not whether or not you can own them.

And you can't just use the new testament you have to include the old. It is part of the bible and its all profitable to teaching, reproof and doctrine-the apostle Paul said that. Paul also said the law was given so that we know what is and what is not sin. If we ignore the old testament we are ignoring the apostle paul.

So what you are saying is that you are incapable of answering my questions in post # 291.

I believe I did in the very next post. I pointed out first it'd not a sin to own a weapon-that is not a scriptural argument. There is nowhere in the bible that says it is and Jesus wouldn't tell you to sin so its not. Period. You can't argue around that no matter what that is a fact.

As far as the action you want to blatantly ignore my reply just because I didn't give you the answer you wanted doesn't mean I didn't answer. Jesus didn't come to do away with the old testament but to fulfill it. We are not bound by the law but the law still defines what sin is. Romans 7:7. To blatantly ignore the old testament is unwise, its calling Paul a liar. If your only answer to that is we don't live under the old covenant-then you have no answer at all. Ignoring answers to your questions doesn't make you right.

 

You also have ignored every verse I posted and every question I asked.

[other one]

proverbs 28:1

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

 

Well, in 1973 that wicked mugger did flee......   problem was he had all my money with him....    I was bold, but dealing with his big old knife just didn't seem worth keeping my money...    of course I had to be in Chicago where it was a felony to have possession of a gun in public.....   and you know I couldn't find a cop anywhere....

 

So are you saying that I didn't deserve Gods protection?

[The_Patriot21]

So what you are saying is that you are incapable of answering my questions in post # 291.

I believe I did. I established biblically that owning a firearm is not a sin-there is nothing to suggest it is. Jesus said you could buy one and all your verses deal with the use of weapons. So biblically you cannot say owning a gun is a sin-so this debate is about use.

As far as use-which your question pertained to I answered it clearly. The OT law defines how they can be used and you can't discredit that. Jesus came to fulfill the law not get rid of it. It means were not bound by it we are saved by grace. But the law still defines what sin is the apostle Paul made that clear in romans 7:7 and later in Timothy where He said that all scripture is profitable for teaching and doctrine. You can't ignore scripture-or an argument because it doesn't after with what you want it to. So you see I did answer your question in post 291.

[hmbld]

proverbs 28:1

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.

 

Well, in 1973 that wicked mugger did flee......   problem was he had all my money with him....    I was bold, but dealing with his big old knife just didn't seem worth keeping my money...    of course I had to be in Chicago where it was a felony to have possession of a gun in public.....   and you know I couldn't find a cop anywhere....

 

So are you saying that I didn't deserve Gods protection?

And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

Luke 6:29

I love the original Les Miserables. This thread makes me think of it. I don't recall if any guns were in the movie lol.

[firestormx]

 

 

So what you are saying is that you are incapable of answering my questions in post # 291.

I believe I did. I established biblically that owning a firearm is not a sin-there is nothing to suggest it is. Jesus said you could buy one and all your verses deal with the use of weapons. So biblically you cannot say owning a gun is a sin-so this debate is about use.

As far as use-which your question pertained to I answered it clearly. The OT law defines how they can be used and you can't discredit that. Jesus came to fulfill the law not get rid of it. It means were not bound by it we are saved by grace. But the law still defines what sin is the apostle Paul made that clear in romans 7:7 and later in Timothy where He said that all scripture is profitable for teaching and doctrine. You can't ignore scripture-or an argument because it doesn't after with what you want it to. So you see I did answer your question in post 291.

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

Edited September 26, 2014 by firestormx

[Qnts2]

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

[firestormx]

 

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

 

In my opinion you are leaving out a lot, like for instance all of the first believers were Jews. I understand that a lot of people believe this doctrine that Jesus taught violence, but it is not the Gospel I read.

[ayin jade]

 

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

 

 

But getting revenge is not the question. I doubt anyone here would think its acceptable to seek revenge with force. Its whether or not it is acceptable to use force to defend yourself or the lives of others. 

 

 

Although that brings up a point. Is it seeking revenge to press charges against someone for robbing you or assaulting you? Is that scripturally acceptable?

[firestormx]

 

 

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

 

 

But getting revenge is not the question. I doubt anyone here would think its acceptable to seek revenge with force. Its whether or not it is acceptable to use force to defend yourself or the lives of others. 

 

 

Although that brings up a point. Is it seeking revenge to press charges against someone for robbing you or assaulting you? Is that scripturally acceptable?

 

To me this is simple. Remember Romans 12:19 above or all the other verses about not following an eye for an eye. 

 

If you hit me and I hit you back then I have retaliated against you or avenged myself.

 

if you break into my home and start to rob me and I catch you and kill you with a gun, then I have retaliated against you  or avenged myself.

 

If you assault my family and I take out a gun and kill you, then I have retaliated against you or avenged myself.

 

I am sure there are some that will spin it the other way. But the fact of the matter is, If we are attacked and we retaliate or avenge ourselves then we have went against scripture.

[coheir]

 

 

 

I have asked many questions that you have not answered, for instance. 

 

Why is there such a contrast between how the old testament saints responded to violence and how the new testament saints responded to violence.

 

As for Jesus said you could buy one, that is taking those verses out of context which I spoke about in another post. It was about fulfilling prophecy, nothing more.

 

 

 

Added Later---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S. If you honestly think you answered my questions in that post, then I request you go read post 291 again, because you haven't.

 

I have been thinking about what you have said about it not being a sin to own a gun. I wanted to acknowledge that to be true. Sin is the transgression of the  God's word* or law.  There is nothing in the bible, old testament or new that says it's wrong to own a weapon. However, we are commanded to turn the other check, we are commanded to show love and not hate to all especially our enemies, and we are called to peace not violence. I honestly think owning a weapon falls under " all things are lawful unto me but all things are not profitable ". I am convinced that responding eye for an eye, violence with violence goes against everything Jesus taught.

 

 

 Romans 12:19

Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

 

 

*( I say transgression of God's word or law because Jesus gave us a new commandment in John 13:34 for example and if you disobey that, by my understanding it would be sin. Because you are disobeying a commandment directly from Christ )

 

 

The biggest difference between the Mosaic covenant and the NT is that the Mosaic covenant is written to a nation and the NT is written to diverse people, who are not a 'nation'.  

 

The Children of Israel is an ethnic group from  common descendents (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). God gave them land, in scripture called the land of Israel (the land belonging to the children of Israel). The Mosaic law includes laws needed to serve God while forming a government to run the land. The Mosaic law includes a court system, and the penalties for breaking the various laws, including the death penalty. God also told that the children of Israel was to make war on those who attempted to attack their land and people.

 

Defending the land and the people from foreign invaders is a function of the government of the land. Since NT Christians are made up of various people from all differing ethnic groups and living in various land/countries. NT Christians as a group, were not given land by God, and therefore are not responsible as a group for protecting the land, like the children of Israel. Since courts and armies are not a part of the NT people, because the NT people were not given a land/country of their own, the NT does not give any laws concerning armies or courts. That does not mean armies or courts and death penalties are bad. It means it is the responsibility of the various governments to handle these necessities. In scripture, there were Christians who were professional soldiers (Centurians etc.) Being a soldier was not a sinful or forbidden occupation.

 

In the future, depending on how you interpret the end times events, Jesus will return to reign on earth as King. As a King, He will have an army. Jesus returns with His army, and they defeat the enemies.     

 

In my opinion you are leaving out a lot, like for instance all of the first believers were Jews. I understand that a lot of people believe this doctrine that Jesus taught violence, but it is not the Gospel I read.

 

men had weapons before Jacob was named Israel, I do not see God saying to his followers ( Israel ) should live without weapons.

Naturally in the mind of a follower of God or Jesus a weapon was for food and protection, killing with weapons are not part of the mindset.