How do you justify violence as a Christian?
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
@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...
No you aren't. Seriously, stop while you are behind.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@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...
No you aren't. Seriously, stop while you are behind.
I am not unequally yoked together with unbelievers. And have not been since I began living the Sermon on the Mount.
Unequally Yoked = 34.9 ἑτεροζυγέω: to be wrongly or poorly matched in an association—‘to be mismatched, to be wrongly matched.’ μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις ‘do not be wrongly matched with unbelievers’ 2 Cor 6:14. It is often necessary to indicate somewhat more precisely the manner in which one may be wrongly matched with others. Accordingly, one can translate 2 Cor 6:14 as ‘do not attempt to work together with those who are unbelievers’ or ‘do not become partners with those who do not believe.’
Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 446). New York: United Bible Societies.
-
@Dave_L https://prezi.com/rdo7e91mruov/biblical-principles/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy# This might interest you, particularly toward the end when it talks about the acts of self-defense.
-
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.
And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
-
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
-
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
-
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.
But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.
But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.
Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.
-
@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 David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.
But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.
Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.
How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.
But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.
Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.
How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?
See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.
-
@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:
@davidtaylorjr said:
@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.
We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.
But thanks for the link just the same.
Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.
And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.
Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.
The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?
Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".
Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.
The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.
God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.
He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.
You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.
You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.
If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.
No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.
If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.
Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?
Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.
We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.
If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.
I think you need to look up the word ethics...
eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......
And you think God changed His moral standard?
Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.
Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.
But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.
Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.
How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?
See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.
You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.
