The Crusades

[Whyme]

Liberating the Holy land shows how carnal the RCC is. I don't wish to sound harsh but its the truth. God will decide what to do with any land and doesn't need peoples help. We don't have a Holy land but we have Holy people who shouldn't kill over land.

Edited March 4, 2021 by Whyme

[teddyv]

8 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

In fact Jesus our Lord encourages soldiers to keep their jobs: 

“Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages." (Luke 3:14).

Christ could have said “put away your swords, and make no war,” but He didn’t. 

That was John the Baptist, not Jesus saying that. Not a big difference at the end of the day.

[teddyv]

6 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

To quote an Israeli Archeologist, “turn the other cheek in the time of Jesus wasn’t let someone slap you again on the other cheek, the ways Jews smote people was with a back hand and if you turn the other cheek it cannot make contact, this turning the other cheek means to not recieve the insult and abuse again.” 

I've never heard that interpretation before.

Conventionally it is connected to the rule that Roman soldiers were permitted to slap a person once, but not twice. It's similar to the walking the extra mile, since Roman soldiers could force a person to carry their gear for only a certain distance.

[David1701]

20 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said:

To quote an Israeli Archeologist, “turn the other cheek in the time of Jesus wasn’t let someone slap you again on the other cheek, the ways Jews smote people was with a back hand and if you turn the other cheek it cannot make contact, this turning the other cheek means to not recieve the insult and abuse again.” 

I do not believe that "interpretation" for one moment!  Look at the context.

Matt. 5:38-41 (WEB)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  
39 But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 
40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 
41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 

The context very obviously shows that turning the other cheek means allowing the one who strikes you on one cheek, to strike the other cheek as well.

Quote

He said they “will die by the sword,” but that’s just a mattwe of fact statement, not a rule for pacifism.

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, is a warning that, as you do to others, so it will be done to you.  He who rolls a stone (i.e. to hurt someone), it will roll back on him.

Quote

In fact Jesus rebuked Peter when he drew his sword in Gethsename not because he fought, but because Peter was resisting Jesus’ salvic plan, “So Jesus said to Peter, "Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?" (John 18:11)

This is a false dichotomy.  Yes, Peter's action was counter to God's plan; but, it was also counter to Jesus' heart, which was not to harm, but to heal.

Luke 22:50,51 (VW)

50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered and said, Permit even this. And He touched his ear and healed him.

Quote

 

The issue of Peter drWing hus sword is he sought to stop Jesus’ atoning sacrifice, as he had done with words earlier: 

“21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.
22 And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, "Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you."
23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man." (Matthew 16:21-23)

 

John 18:36 (VW) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.

Quote

The Apostle Paul is talking about spiritual warfare “in our weapons arn’t carnal,” he doesn’t speak against physical warfare.  

That is the whole point!  OUR warfare is not with physical (carnal) weapons but with spiritual ones.

2 Cor. 10:3-5 (VW)

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ,

 

[Fidei Defensor]

27 minutes ago, David1701 said:

I do not believe that "interpretation" for one moment!  Look at the context.

Matt. 5:38-41 (WEB)

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’  
39 But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 
40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. 
41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 

The context very obviously shows that turning the other cheek means allowing the one who strikes you on one cheek, to strike the other cheek as well.

Those who live by the sword will die by the sword, is a warning that, as you do to others, so it will be done to you.  He who rolls a stone (i.e. to hurt someone), it will roll back on him.

This is a false dichotomy.  Yes, Peter's action was counter to God's plan; but, it was also counter to Jesus' heart, which was not to harm, but to heal.

Luke 22:50,51 (VW)

50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered and said, Permit even this. And He touched his ear and healed him.

John 18:36 (VW) Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.

That is the whole point!  OUR warfare is not with physical (carnal) weapons but with spiritual ones.

2 Cor. 10:3-5 (VW)

3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh.
4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty through God for pulling down strongholds,
5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity unto the obedience of Christ,

 

You are using scriptures about spiritual warefare which don’t make a case against militancy and actual warefare. 

Besides we have to remeber in the times of Jesus, Peter and Paul force of arms meant to be wiped out by the Romans. Which did happen layer by Emperors Caligula, Domition, Nero, and Diocletian. So even if you can argue Paul or Christ was againat militancy it was likely because it was too dangerious to fight to protect the Church. In contrast, God forged a nation called the USA by war in 1700’s. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Fidei Defensor

[Whyme]

1 minute ago, Fidei Defensor said:

You are using scriptures about spiritual warefare. You cannot use them for a case against militancy and actual warefare. 

Besides we have to remeber in the times of Jesus, Peter and Paul force of arms meant to be wiped out by the Romans. Which did happen layer by Emperors Caligula, Domition, Nero, and Diocletian. So even if you can argue Paul or Christ was againat militancy it was likely because it was too dangerious to fight to protect the Church. In contrast, God forged a nation called the USA by war in 1700’s. 

God used babylon and Rome to rule the Jewish people but do you think God approved of these pagan nations? 

[Whyme]

My kingdom is not of this world. Seek the kingdom

[David1701]

6 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said:

You are using scriptures about spiritual warefare which don’t make a case against militancy and actual warefare. 

Besides we have to remeber in the times of Jesus, Peter and Paul force of arms meant to be wiped out by the Romans. Which did happen layer by Emperors Caligula, Domition, Nero, and Diocletian. So even if you can argue Paul or Christ was againat militancy it was likely because it was too dangerious to fight to protect the Church. In contrast, God forged a nation called the USA by war in 1700’s. 

Are you seriously suggesting that, if it had not been "too dangerous", the Lord would have had his people take up arms against the Roman Empire?  This sounds like what the Pharisees, wrongly, expected the Messiah to be like.

God is sovereign and brings all things to pass, according to the counsel of his own will; so, in that sense, I agree that God forged the USA by war.  On the other hand, the same thing could be said of any other country forged by war, or radically changed by war or revolution (e.g. France, after the French revolution, or Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, etc.)

Now, you might say that the USA was founded by Christians; but, many, if not all, of the "founding fathers" were high-level Freemasons.  Freemasons discover, at the 30th Degree and higher, that they worship Lucifer.

[Whyme]

My kingdom isn't of this world. 

[Fidei Defensor]

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Are you seriously suggesting that, if it had not been "too dangerous", the Lord would have had his people take up arms against the Roman Empire?  This sounds like what the Pharisees, wrongly, expected the Messiah to be like.

God is sovereign and brings all things to pass, according to the counsel of his own will; so, in that sense, I agree that God forged the USA by war.  On the other hand, the same thing could be said of any other country forged by war, or radically changed by war or revolution (e.g. France, after the French revolution, or Nazi Germany, or Stalin's Russia, etc.)

Now, you might say that the USA was founded by Christians; but, many, if not all, of the "founding fathers" were high-level Freemasons.  Freemasons discover, at the 30th Degree and higher, that they worship Lucifer.

I didn’t say Jesus would have called people to become Miltes Christi (Soldiers of Christ) ready to wage war. I did say we need to take into context any anti-war attitudes in The New Testament, which I argue are not prevalent, are because the goal was a) to spread the gospel, and b) raising up arms would make Rome crush the early church.