How do you justify violence as a Christian?
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone 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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
-
@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:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
Do you own a house, a car, a bank account? You have contracts with those items. Were the companies you dealt with only Christian? Your theology is whack.
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
Do you own a house, a car, a bank account? You have contracts with those items. Were the companies you dealt with only Christian? Your theology is whack.
I have no contracts with anyone.
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
Do you own a house, a car, a bank account? You have contracts with those items. Were the companies you dealt with only Christian? Your theology is whack.
I have no contracts with anyone.
Where do you live? Where do you work?
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
Do you own a house, a car, a bank account? You have contracts with those items. Were the companies you dealt with only Christian? Your theology is whack.
I have no contracts with anyone.
Where do you live? Where do you work?
I'm not sure it matters. But I do not have any entanglements, legal or otherwise with unbelievers. Soon after the Lord converted me, and after reading Paul, I gave up my career and skills because it yoked me with unbelievers. But the Lord provided for me abundantly for nearly 50 years so far, and blessed me with an early retirement from my own pocket. All based on Matthew 6:24-34.
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
Do you own a house, a car, a bank account? You have contracts with those items. Were the companies you dealt with only Christian? Your theology is whack.
I have no contracts with anyone.
Where do you live? Where do you work?
I'm not sure it matters. But I do not have any entanglements, legal or otherwise with unbelievers. Soon after the Lord converted me, and after reading Paul, I gave up my career and skills because it yoked me with unbelievers. But the Lord provided for me abundantly for nearly 50 years so far, and blessed me with an early retirement from my own pocket. All based on Matthew 6:24-34.
It matters because I highly doubt you have no contracts with anyone.
-
He has internet service
-
@Dave_L said:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Dave,
Here are some resources on this passage you can look up or for future use. Its just information the help with the conversation, not an endorsement of the content. You would have to mine these article for yourself. At least you have something more concrete to work with. CM- Webb, William J. Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 85. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.
- Beale, Greg K. “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5-7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 550-81.
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks for sticking around. John was the last OT prophet and they were still under the Law. Besides, they were not believers and worked for the Civil Magistrate.Pretty sure John is found in the NT and the books that contain him were written AFTER the crucifixion so if it were not part of the new teachings, why include them in the NT?
That being said, how do you know those soldiers were not believers? The very fact that they were asking John the question would point that they in fact did believe in what he was saying.
That being said, you have now created a double standard. It is ok to kill if you work for and do so on behalf of the civil magistrate in defense, but if you do it in self defense somehow that is sin?
This is how and why your "theology" breaks down and doesn't work.
Were the Soldiers believers? Christ had not yet begun his ministry at this time. They were in line with OT principles. And the New Covenant had not begun. So what do you make of it?
YLT says: “And questioning him also were those warring, saying, ‘And we, what shall we do?’ and he said unto them, ‘Do violence to no one, nor accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.’” (Luke 3:14)
YLT is off base in their translation. It doesn't make sense. Extort by force makes much more sense and is the proper translation.
I don't think it is an issue because God sanctioned violence at the hands of the civil magistrate. Even today we would tell cops to kill bad people by any means. But we would also tell Christians not to be cops, or to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers in the military.
But here's another translation from the KJV.
“And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” (Luke 3:14)
Also, poorly translated. Yes, it is possible for the KJV to not be the best translation. There is no indication in Scripture that we should tell Christians to not be police or serve in the military. Otherwise, John told the soldiers to sin. You have created a double standard by your incorrect interpretation.
You cannot use the OT to justify violence under the NT. Plus, how do we take the cross and the sword at the same time? Not to mention, place ourselves under the control of unbelievers?
We always have the potential to be under the control of unbelievers in this world. Paul addresses this.
But he also says not to be unequally yoked together with them.....
Wow, now you have really gone out of context.
Thanks for commenting on this. Please note the context:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Notice Paul's use of "unbelievers" and "them" plural. Many say you should not marry outside of the faith because of this verse. But marriage is normally to one person, not people (plural).
You still took it out of context and broadly applied it.
You cannot justify hanging with the wrong crowd in view of what Paul says. Much less becoming legally bound to unbelievers and under their control.
Then I guess we all better move to a deserted Island Dave. Your theology makes no sense and isn't biblical.
Could you marry an unbeliever with a clear conscience after reading this passage?
No, but that is not the same thing as being a police officer or serving in the military either.
You have more control over an unbelieving spouse than you do a magistrate. If you cannot lay up treasure on earth, how can you shoot someone in behalf of someone who does?
How can you work for a secular employer? How can you pay taxes?
Thanks for asking. Jesus told us to pay taxes because it is the government's money to start with. But I've had some interesting challenges working for unbelieving business owners along the way. But I never signed a contract with them. Nor did I ever belong to a Labor Union. Labor Unions involve Christians in being unequally yoked with unbelievers.
As a manager I experienced loss and demotion demanding a fair wage for all employees for a fair amount of work before I would follow through with their target quotas. I felt I would be stealing otherwise.
Do you own a house, a car, a bank account? You have contracts with those items. Were the companies you dealt with only Christian? Your theology is whack.
I have no contracts with anyone.
Where do you live? Where do you work?
I'm not sure it matters. But I do not have any entanglements, legal or otherwise with unbelievers. Soon after the Lord converted me, and after reading Paul, I gave up my career and skills because it yoked me with unbelievers. But the Lord provided for me abundantly for nearly 50 years so far, and blessed me with an early retirement from my own pocket. All based on Matthew 6:24-34.
It matters because I highly doubt you have no contracts with anyone.
I cannot think of any document in my posession that places me under the control of any unbeliever.
-
@C_M_ said:
@Dave_L said:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,” (2 Corinthians 6:14–17)
Dave,
Here are some resources on this passage you can look up or for future use. Its just information the help with the conversation, not an endorsement of the content. You would have to mine these article for yourself. At least you have something more concrete to work with. CM- Webb, William J. Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1. Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 85. Sheffield: JSOT, 1993.
- Beale, Greg K. “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5-7 and Its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1.” New Testament Studies 35 (1989): 550-81.
Thanks CM. I'll keep an eye out for these. I like Beal especially on Revelation.
-
@GaoLu said:
He has internet serviceThanks GaoLu. I also have a water bill each month.
-
And you have contracts with those services. So I guess you were not being honest. Are the companies Christian owned?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
And you have contracts with those services. So I guess you were not being honest. Are the companies Christian owned?
No contracts I cannot walk away from. I think a near perfect example of what Paul speaks of in not being unequally yoked with unbelievers would involve Christians NOT being under contract with teachers unions, labor unions, police and military. It's not about paying water bills.
I've always followed this principle via the Sermon on the Mount. I highly recommend it
“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.” (Romans 13:8)
-
Anybody can walk away from anything, even a marriage. That is hardly a good definition. But then...Dave's theology....
-
@GaoLu said:
Anybody can walk away from anything, even a marriage. That is hardly a good definition. But then...Dave's theology....I do not have any contracts or debts or loans. I own everything I have. God has always provided for me according to the Sermon on the Mount. I pay bills monthly since it is expedient.
-
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Anybody can walk away from anything, even a marriage. That is hardly a good definition. But then...Dave's theology....I do not have any contracts or debts or loans. I own everything I have. God has always provided for me according to the Sermon on the Mount. I pay bills monthly since it is expedient.
But the fact is you are yoked to unbelievers if you are paying for those services. You are also yoked to the nation and you cant get out of those contractual obligations either without going to prison or having everything taken from you.
Here's the thing, your theology is not correct or biblical.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@GaoLu said:
Anybody can walk away from anything, even a marriage. That is hardly a good definition. But then...Dave's theology....I do not have any contracts or debts or loans. I own everything I have. God has always provided for me according to the Sermon on the Mount. I pay bills monthly since it is expedient.
But the fact is you are yoked to unbelievers if you are paying for those services. You are also yoked to the nation and you cant get out of those contractual obligations either without going to prison or having everything taken from you.
Here's the thing, your theology is not correct or biblical.
I'm not unequally yoked to any unbelievers. We are to pay taxes. We pay our bills according to the system the providers designed to collect them. If you follow the Sermon on the Mount, you can live debt and contract free as I have for many years. But if you belong to a teachers union, or a labor union, the police or military, you are unequally yoked to unbelievers...
