How do you justify violence as a Christian?
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.
How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking to debate but trying to learn how you support your views from scripture. As a pacifist, I believe the NT supersedes the OT except where the NT imports portions for our use. And I cannot use the NT to support violence or self-defence.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking to debate but trying to learn how you support your views from scripture. As a pacifist, I believe the NT supersedes the OT except where the NT imports portions for our use. And I cannot use the NT to support violence or self-defence.
That's called cherry picking Scripture to support a view. That's not a good thing. With that method you can justify homosexuality, adultery, etc. You can justify anything if you don't look at the whole.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking to debate but trying to learn how you support your views from scripture. As a pacifist, I believe the NT supersedes the OT except where the NT imports portions for our use. And I cannot use the NT to support violence or self-defence.
That's called cherry picking Scripture to support a view. That's not a good thing. With that method you can justify homosexuality, adultery, etc. You can justify anything if you don't look at the whole.
It is not cherry picking to support a view. It would be much easier to trust in violence rather than God. But I cannot, based on the NT replacing the OT. And not one shred of evidence in the NT permitting violent self-defence.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking to debate but trying to learn how you support your views from scripture. As a pacifist, I believe the NT supersedes the OT except where the NT imports portions for our use. And I cannot use the NT to support violence or self-defence.
That's called cherry picking Scripture to support a view. That's not a good thing. With that method you can justify homosexuality, adultery, etc. You can justify anything if you don't look at the whole.
It is not cherry picking to support a view. It would be much easier to trust in violence rather than God. But I cannot, based on the NT replacing the OT. And not one shred of evidence in the NT permitting violent self-defence.
That's fine if that is your conviction. But the NT did not replace the OT. So do not push your views on everyone else.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking to debate but trying to learn how you support your views from scripture. As a pacifist, I believe the NT supersedes the OT except where the NT imports portions for our use. And I cannot use the NT to support violence or self-defence.
That's called cherry picking Scripture to support a view. That's not a good thing. With that method you can justify homosexuality, adultery, etc. You can justify anything if you don't look at the whole.
It is not cherry picking to support a view. It would be much easier to trust in violence rather than God. But I cannot, based on the NT replacing the OT. And not one shred of evidence in the NT permitting violent self-defence.
That's fine if that is your conviction. But the NT did not replace the OT. So do not push your views on everyone else.
Jeremiah clearly says the NT replaces the OT. And unless the NT imports any of the OT, we use it only as a commentary and history. The NT forbids violent self-defence.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
In my lifetime I've been exposed to Christian pacifists, the Mennonites, Quakers (historically pacifists with some modern exceptions), and others. And to Churches that preach violence as an acceptable means of Christian conduct. Baptists, Reformed, Pentecostals and such (generally speaking). So it has been an interesting journey looking for answers. I am a pacifist but hold beliefs common to all groups.How do you justify using violence as a Christian? Under what conditions would you kill or join a war or revolution?
Scripture allows for violence in self-defense. The book of Exodus, as well as other parts of the Torah, make this clear.
There is nothing to say that defense is against God's law. Sure you will say the sermon on the mount and you will say that there is no evidence in the NT but that is because you take things out of the context of the whole.
Violence should never be the first choice. And you are never to be the aggressor initiating violence for any reason.
Thanks for the reply. I'm not looking to debate but trying to learn how you support your views from scripture. As a pacifist, I believe the NT supersedes the OT except where the NT imports portions for our use. And I cannot use the NT to support violence or self-defence.
That's called cherry picking Scripture to support a view. That's not a good thing. With that method you can justify homosexuality, adultery, etc. You can justify anything if you don't look at the whole.
It is not cherry picking to support a view. It would be much easier to trust in violence rather than God. But I cannot, based on the NT replacing the OT. And not one shred of evidence in the NT permitting violent self-defence.
That's fine if that is your conviction. But the NT did not replace the OT. So do not push your views on everyone else.
Jeremiah clearly says the NT replaces the OT. And unless the NT imports any of the OT, we use it only as a commentary and history. The NT forbids violent self-defence.
Reference?
And no, the NT does not forbid self-defense. It speaks against retaliation, not self-defense.
-
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)
Romans 12:17–21
-
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.
-
@Dave_L said:
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
I came across a resource you may be able to use. If you have, in your library, check it out. This is just a contribution to the conversation. It's not an endorsement of its content. CM
Sampley, J. P. ― "Before God, I Do Not Lie‘ (Gal. I.20): Paul‘s Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." NTS 23 (1977) 477–82.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
I came across a resource you may be able to use. If you have, in your library, check it out. This is just a contribution to the conversation. It's not an endorsement of its content. CM
Sampley, J. P. ― "Before God, I Do Not Lie‘ (Gal. I.20): Paul‘s Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." NTS 23 (1977) 477–82.
Do you have a link where we can find this?
-
Not much, I hope this helps. You may have to subscribe. Let me know the outcome. CM
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.
Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.
But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
I came across a resource you may be able to use. If you have, in your library, check it out. This is just a contribution to the conversation. It's not an endorsement of its content. CM
Sampley, J. P. ― "Before God, I Do Not Lie‘ (Gal. I.20): Paul‘s Self-Defence in the Light of Roman Legal Praxis." NTS 23 (1977) 477–82.
Thanks for the input. I have not found that reference yet but will continue looking for it. Please understand Christians defended themselves legally (up to a point) and vocally in the NT but never violently.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.
Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.
But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.
That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.
Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.
You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.
That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.
There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.
Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.
You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.
But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.
That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.
There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.
First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.
You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.
Romans 12:17–21
Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"
It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.
You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.
Except Scripture does not say that Dave.
Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.
There is no Scripture to support this view.
Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.
Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)
And Pentecost made this a reality.
You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.
That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.
It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.
As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"
That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.
There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.
I've defended my position repeatedly.
You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.
Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.
First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.
Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:
Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.
Here is the full context:
Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)
Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.
Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.
Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)
An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.
Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)
Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.
This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.
The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.
Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.
But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.
Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.
You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.
How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?
Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?
It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.
Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....
Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.
Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.
How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.
You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.
But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.
That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.
There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.
First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.
If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.
You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.
You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.
