How do you justify violence as a Christian?

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,” (2 Corinthians 11:26)

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,” (2 Corinthians 11:26)

Yes, in danger because of his faith and message. Not what we are talking about.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,” (2 Corinthians 11:26)

Yes, in danger because of his faith and message. Not what we are talking about.

Regardless, it is the position every christian is in, and Paul taught us “Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19–21)

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,” (2 Corinthians 11:26)

Yes, in danger because of his faith and message. Not what we are talking about.

Regardless, it is the position every christian is in, and Paul taught us “Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19–21)

This passage has nothing to do with self-defense.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,” (2 Corinthians 11:26)

Yes, in danger because of his faith and message. Not what we are talking about.

Regardless, it is the position every christian is in, and Paul taught us “Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19–21)

This passage has nothing to do with self-defense.

It has everything to do with trusting God instead of violence.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

show previous quotes

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

show previous quotes

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

show previous quotes

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

show previous quotes

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@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:
““Indeed, a time is coming,” says the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the LORD.“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the LORD. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

That does not say the OT is not relevant or replaced by the NT. That is talking about the specific covenant.

Romans 12:17–21

Notice a key point in this: "If it is possible"

It does not say you cannot defend yourself. It says do not take revenge. Those are not the same things.

You cannot support your position on either count from the NT. If you recall, Jesus' Kingdom WAS of this world under the Old Covenant. But some big changes came along under the New Covenant. Not only did it replace ALL of the Old. Jesus' kingdom is spiritual, no longer of this world. So his servants DO NOT fight.

Except Scripture does not say that Dave.

Also, under the Old Covenant the Holy Spirit was WITH believers, but now He is IN believers. And it is impossible to walk IN the Spirit and Kill enemies as the OT approves and instigates.

There is no Scripture to support this view.

Jeremiah, quoted above disproves your theory about violence under the OT being permissible today.

Jesus clearly says “Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:17)

And Pentecost made this a reality.

You cannot walk in the Spirit and kill enemies you love.

That is your opinion based on poor theology and Scripture taken out of context.

It is not my opinion. If you can show me how to kill and love enemies at the same time, or how to turn the other cheek without turning it, or curse those who curse me instead of blessing them, please do. I would like to be able to not deny Christ while denying him.

As usual, you mix unrelated things together to create "Dave's Theology"

That is an easy out for any who cannot defend their position from scripture. In your case the New Testament.

There would not be any Christian martyrs if the NT taught your position.

I've defended my position repeatedly.

You tell us violent self defense is permissible when Jesus says it is not.

Ok, I'm going to try and lay this out plainly and I request you respond to each point.

First, it is ironic you say Jesus says that self-defense is not permissible when he never addresses the subject at all.

Yes, you claim he does in the Sermon on the Mount. But let's examine those passages:

Here are the references in question: Matthew 5:39 and Luke 6:29. I am going to focus on Matthew 5:39 because it gives more context of the quote than Luke's Gospel.

Here is the full context:

Matthew 5:38–42 (ESV)

Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Now, the ESV heading for this says "Retaliation" and for good reason. Jesus is referencing in this passage Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21. Since we must interpret Scripture with Scripture, we must look and see what those passages are discussing to know what Jesus is referring to.

Exodus 21:22–25 (ESV)
22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This passage is clearly not talking about self-defense, but rather, it is talking about taking revenge, or retaliating to the wrongdoer.

Leviticus 24:17–21 (ESV)

An Eye for an Eye
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal’s life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

Once again, this passage is clearly talking about retaliation.

Deuteronomy 19:15–21 (ESV)

Laws Concerning Witnesses
15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. 20 And the rest shall hear and fear, and shall never again commit any such evil among you. 21 Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Again, this passage is about punishment for a wrong. It is not about self-defense.

This being the case, we must understand that Jesus is discussing Retaliation, and not self-defense in the Sermon on the Mount passage that you keep putting forth.

The other passage you mention is when Peter cuts off the ear of the servant of the High Priest.

Matthew 26:50–56 (ESV)
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. 51 And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?” 55 At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. 56 But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples left him and fled.

In this passage Peter is not acting out of self-defense, he is acting out of agression. On top of that, this is a much different circumstance. Christ had to be taken and murdered to secure our atonement.

But neither of these passages that you hold to for your position deal with self-defense at all.

Exodus 22 gives an example of defense in which there is no guilt if they strike the offender and he dies.

You must always interpret Scripture with Scripture and never take Scripture out of context.

How do you love enemies if you kill them? How do you turn the other cheek if you retaliate? How do you not resist evil if you resist it?

Where do you find ANYONE in the NT practicing what you preach? Or in the early years of the church?

It is not there. But every Christian in the NT practiced to the letter all that Jesus taught about non-violence. And the large number of martyrdoms also prove they did not practice what you preach.

Jesus told us to put away the sword and take the cross.....

Did you even read what I wrote? I addressed your issues you raise in this post. Either offer counters to what I posted or admit you are wrong.

Thanks for the work you put into that. But it doesn't add up. If Jesus and the other NT figures believed as you do in their interpretations of the OT, you would see them taking the sword instead of the cross. And there is not one instance where they followed your course of action.

How in the world do you come to that conclusion? We are not talking about being persecuted for your faith. That is something completely different. We are talking about, say for example, a robber comes and is threatening you and your family, or someone is beating you for no reason. We don't know what the NT figures believed regarding that from the NT itself because there is not a situation like that documented. But we know Jesus followed the OT.

You cannot love enemies and kill them. You cannot stop and interview your assailant and ask if he is attacking you for religious reasons or not. If you lay up treasure and are attacked for it, how do you kill the thief knowing you were in the wrong in the first place?
There are a lot of "What If" situations any wild imagination can justify its lust for violence with.

That's a lot of reading into the text and what it means to love your enemies.

But you do the exact opposite of what they believed in word and deed. Jesus and all of the disciples demonstrated what he taught and meant by their examples and their refusal to defend themselves using violence.

That is your interpretation of something that is absent from the text.

There is not one example of ANY NT figure believing the way you do when it comes to violent self-defence. We are to put away the sword and take the cross. But you say put away the cross and take the sword.

First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

If Jesus and the disciples turned the other cheek, which BTW they did without exception, you will not see your violence being endorsed by them. So absence of sin because of obedience to righteousness is very pertinent.

There is no example of a situation which we are talking about so you don't know what they would have done Dave.

How many times was Paul beaten and stoned? What did Paul teach about vengeance belonging not to us, but to the Lord?

Stoned for his FAITH. That is not the scenario we are talking about here.

“I have been on journeys many times, in dangers from rivers, in dangers from robbers, in dangers from my own countrymen, in dangers from Gentiles, in dangers in the city, in dangers in the wilderness, in dangers at sea, in dangers from false brothers,” (2 Corinthians 11:26)

Yes, in danger because of his faith and message. Not what we are talking about.

Regardless, it is the position every christian is in, and Paul taught us “Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head.Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.” (Romans 12:19–21)

This passage has nothing to do with self-defense.

It has everything to do with trusting God instead of violence.

God also gave us means, and permission, to defend ourselves.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

This passage does not say the OT is out and the NT is the only thing we follow. What this ACTUALLY says is that the Covenant, a specific covenant, would be broken. It in no way says that the entire Old Testament is out and it is a gross mishandling of Scripture to twist it to say that. Jesus and the Apostles did not even hold that view so you stand alone there Dave.

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

show previous quotes

You keep saying that is the options, no that is not the options. Nor is that an accurate representation of Scripture.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

I don't need to find it in the NT. It's in the OT and that is just as applicable today despite what you seem to think.

show previous quotes

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

show previous quotes

No I don't, you just aren't talking about the same things I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. You pull verses out of context, apply them to situations they aren't even discussing, and then tell me I am the one with false doctrine. Good grief.

show previous quotes

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

The NT doesn't say that. It says it does not tolerate agression. It does not tolerate revenge. It says nothing about self-defense. You add to Scripture if you say that it does.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said: >

God also gave us means, and permission, to defend ourselves.

Not anywhere to be found in the NT. The disciples had two daggers (swords) that Peter used for self-defence and Jesus rebuked him for it. Why did they have the swords? Because Jesus needed to fulfill scripture about being numbered with the transgressors. Had they not had the swords, they would not have been perceived as transgressors.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

This passage does not say the OT is out and the NT is the only thing we follow. What this ACTUALLY says is that the Covenant, a specific covenant, would be broken. It in no way says that the entire Old Testament is out and it is a gross mishandling of Scripture to twist it to say that. Jesus and the Apostles did not even hold that view so you stand alone there Dave.

Covenant and Testament are synonyms.

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

You keep saying that is the options, no that is not the options. Nor is that an accurate representation of Scripture.

show previous quotes

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

I don't need to find it in the NT. It's in the OT and that is just as applicable today despite what you seem to think.

But we are not in the Old Covenant. If we were Jesus would not say "My Kingdom is not of this world". It WAS of this world under the OT.

show previous quotes

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

No I don't, you just aren't talking about the same things I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. You pull verses out of context, apply them to situations they aren't even discussing, and then tell me I am the one with false doctrine. Good grief.

show previous quotes

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

The NT doesn't say that. It says it does not tolerate agression. It does not tolerate revenge. It says nothing about self-defense. You add to Scripture if you say that it does.

How does loving enemies square with your hatred for them?

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said: >

God also gave us means, and permission, to defend ourselves.

Not anywhere to be found in the NT. The disciples had two daggers (swords) that Peter used for self-defence and Jesus rebuked him for it. Why did they have the swords? Because Jesus needed to fulfill scripture about being numbered with the transgressors. Had they not had the swords, they would not have been perceived as transgressors.

show previous quotes

No, Peter did not use them in self defense, he used it in agression. There is a major difference.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

This passage does not say the OT is out and the NT is the only thing we follow. What this ACTUALLY says is that the Covenant, a specific covenant, would be broken. It in no way says that the entire Old Testament is out and it is a gross mishandling of Scripture to twist it to say that. Jesus and the Apostles did not even hold that view so you stand alone there Dave.

Covenant and Testament are synonyms.

Oh brother Dave, please tell me you did not bring out that argument in an attempt to be serious or credible? The Old Testament and New Testament are not part of the original. That is what the church has labeled them. There are MANY covenents contained within the books we consider to be the Old Testament. Your argument is invalid.

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

You keep saying that is the options, no that is not the options. Nor is that an accurate representation of Scripture.

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

I don't need to find it in the NT. It's in the OT and that is just as applicable today despite what you seem to think.

But we are not in the Old Covenant. If we were Jesus would not say "My Kingdom is not of this world". It WAS of this world under the OT.

Not relevant to this conversation.

show previous quotes

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

No I don't, you just aren't talking about the same things I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. You pull verses out of context, apply them to situations they aren't even discussing, and then tell me I am the one with false doctrine. Good grief.

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

The NT doesn't say that. It says it does not tolerate agression. It does not tolerate revenge. It says nothing about self-defense. You add to Scripture if you say that it does.

How does loving enemies square with your hatred for them?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/loving-your-enemies/

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said: >

God also gave us means, and permission, to defend ourselves.

Not anywhere to be found in the NT. The disciples had two daggers (swords) that Peter used for self-defence and Jesus rebuked him for it. Why did they have the swords? Because Jesus needed to fulfill scripture about being numbered with the transgressors. Had they not had the swords, they would not have been perceived as transgressors.

No, Peter did not use them in self defense, he used it in agression. There is a major difference.

Either way, Jesus forbids it. We are to love enemies

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

This passage does not say the OT is out and the NT is the only thing we follow. What this ACTUALLY says is that the Covenant, a specific covenant, would be broken. It in no way says that the entire Old Testament is out and it is a gross mishandling of Scripture to twist it to say that. Jesus and the Apostles did not even hold that view so you stand alone there Dave.

Covenant and Testament are synonyms.

Oh brother Dave, please tell me you did not bring out that argument in an attempt to be serious or credible? The Old Testament and New Testament are not part of the original. That is what the church has labeled them. There are MANY covenents contained within the books we consider to be the Old Testament. Your argument is invalid.

show previous quotes

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

You keep saying that is the options, no that is not the options. Nor is that an accurate representation of Scripture.

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

I don't need to find it in the NT. It's in the OT and that is just as applicable today despite what you seem to think.

But we are not in the Old Covenant. If we were Jesus would not say "My Kingdom is not of this world". It WAS of this world under the OT.

Not relevant to this conversation.

show previous quotes

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

No I don't, you just aren't talking about the same things I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. You pull verses out of context, apply them to situations they aren't even discussing, and then tell me I am the one with false doctrine. Good grief.

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

The NT doesn't say that. It says it does not tolerate agression. It does not tolerate revenge. It says nothing about self-defense. You add to Scripture if you say that it does.

It says to love enemies not kill them

show previous quotes

How does loving enemies square with your hatred for them?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/loving-your-enemies/

Thanks for the link. Here's one for you to consider too.

http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said: >

God also gave us means, and permission, to defend ourselves.

Not anywhere to be found in the NT. The disciples had two daggers (swords) that Peter used for self-defence and Jesus rebuked him for it. Why did they have the swords? Because Jesus needed to fulfill scripture about being numbered with the transgressors. Had they not had the swords, they would not have been perceived as transgressors.

No, Peter did not use them in self defense, he used it in agression. There is a major difference.

Either way, Jesus forbids it. We are to love enemies

No, I'm not going to let you do that. You can't say either way Jesus forbids it when that is not what it says.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

This passage does not say the OT is out and the NT is the only thing we follow. What this ACTUALLY says is that the Covenant, a specific covenant, would be broken. It in no way says that the entire Old Testament is out and it is a gross mishandling of Scripture to twist it to say that. Jesus and the Apostles did not even hold that view so you stand alone there Dave.

Covenant and Testament are synonyms.

Oh brother Dave, please tell me you did not bring out that argument in an attempt to be serious or credible? The Old Testament and New Testament are not part of the original. That is what the church has labeled them. There are MANY covenents contained within the books we consider to be the Old Testament. Your argument is invalid.

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

You keep saying that is the options, no that is not the options. Nor is that an accurate representation of Scripture.

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

I don't need to find it in the NT. It's in the OT and that is just as applicable today despite what you seem to think.

But we are not in the Old Covenant. If we were Jesus would not say "My Kingdom is not of this world". It WAS of this world under the OT.

Not relevant to this conversation.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

No I don't, you just aren't talking about the same things I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. You pull verses out of context, apply them to situations they aren't even discussing, and then tell me I am the one with false doctrine. Good grief.

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

The NT doesn't say that. It says it does not tolerate agression. It does not tolerate revenge. It says nothing about self-defense. You add to Scripture if you say that it does.

It says to love enemies not kill them

show previous quotes

How does loving enemies square with your hatred for them?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/loving-your-enemies/

Thanks for the link. Here's one for you to consider too.

http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm

Never heard of PlowCreek. But a brief cursory overview they are not on solid ground.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said: >

God also gave us means, and permission, to defend ourselves.

Not anywhere to be found in the NT. The disciples had two daggers (swords) that Peter used for self-defence and Jesus rebuked him for it. Why did they have the swords? Because Jesus needed to fulfill scripture about being numbered with the transgressors. Had they not had the swords, they would not have been perceived as transgressors.

No, Peter did not use them in self defense, he used it in agression. There is a major difference.

Either way, Jesus forbids it. We are to love enemies

No, I'm not going to let you do that. You can't say either way Jesus forbids it when that is not what it says.

show previous quotes

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.” (Hebrews 8:8–10)

Not sure what this passage is supposed to show...

It shows the NT completely replaced the OT except where the NT imported portions.

There is no way that it shows that at all.

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Jeremiah 31:31–33)

This passage does not say the OT is out and the NT is the only thing we follow. What this ACTUALLY says is that the Covenant, a specific covenant, would be broken. It in no way says that the entire Old Testament is out and it is a gross mishandling of Scripture to twist it to say that. Jesus and the Apostles did not even hold that view so you stand alone there Dave.

Covenant and Testament are synonyms.

Oh brother Dave, please tell me you did not bring out that argument in an attempt to be serious or credible? The Old Testament and New Testament are not part of the original. That is what the church has labeled them. There are MANY covenents contained within the books we consider to be the Old Testament. Your argument is invalid.

Your hermeneutics do not allow for the NT replacing the OT in its entirety. Only those portions of the OT imported by the NT remain. And violent self-defence is not part of the NT.

Correct because the NT does NOT replace the OT in its entirety. There is nothing to support that. Not even Christ or the Apostles. There is no evidence that they held that view.

If you try to keep part of the Law, you denounce Christ and must keep all of it. Only the portions imported by the NT are binding. The rest is commentary.

No support for this.

“For all who rely on doing the works of the law are under a curse, because it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law.”” (Galatians 3:10)

Once again, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You cannot have it both ways. You are either in the New Covenant (peace) or in the Old (violence).

You keep saying that is the options, no that is not the options. Nor is that an accurate representation of Scripture.

You cannot hold your pro death views and follow Jesus. He does not make allowances. You must love him more than your own life, put away the sword, and take the cross.

Who in the world says I am pro-death? Good grief. And yes, the Bible DOES make allowances. I'm done debating you. You have lost this one. You take things out of context and add things to Scripture that are not there and ignore half the Bible.

Find your teaching on violence anywhere in the NT and I'll rest my case.

I don't need to find it in the NT. It's in the OT and that is just as applicable today despite what you seem to think.

But we are not in the Old Covenant. If we were Jesus would not say "My Kingdom is not of this world". It WAS of this world under the OT.

Not relevant to this conversation.

You cannot debate Jesus or the Disciples. They uniformly condemn your pro death (under justifiable conditions including the overthrow of the US government) views.

I'm not debating Jesus or the Disciples, I'm debating Dave's unbiblical and illogical theology.

You are saying Jesus and all of the Apostles who forfeited their lives died unnecessarily because they refused to defend themselves.

I have never said that. You are talking about something completely different than what I am talking about.

You leave us with no other conclusion.

No I don't, you just aren't talking about the same things I am. You have no idea what you are talking about. You pull verses out of context, apply them to situations they aren't even discussing, and then tell me I am the one with false doctrine. Good grief.

No, you hold many false doctrines in your bid to cower behind violence.

Many "false doctrines" that you have yet to show by Scripture without taking things out of context or bringing in passages that have nothing to do with the topic. I don't cower behind violence. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Since the NT does not tolerate violence from Christians, you must preach a different Christ in order to stake your claim.

The NT doesn't say that. It says it does not tolerate agression. It does not tolerate revenge. It says nothing about self-defense. You add to Scripture if you say that it does.

It says to love enemies not kill them

How does loving enemies square with your hatred for them?

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/loving-your-enemies/

Thanks for the link. Here's one for you to consider too.

http://www.plowcreek.org/bible_pacifism.htm

Never heard of PlowCreek. But a brief cursory overview they are not on solid ground.

I believe the Mennonites come the closest to understanding NT ethics of any I've come across over the years. But I find some flaws as well. I believe they are closer than the Reformed who are on the far end of the spectrum.

In my experience I've learned from practically every group considered evangelical and don't believe any single group has all the truth.

Jesus and the Disciples provided a living commentary on what Jesus meant by the words he spoke. Peter gives a concise outline of how they lived and died.

“For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:” (1 Peter 2:21–23)

C Mc · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

Note: All Scripture is given by Inspiration. Meaning, God "breathe." Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Jesus used the OT. There was no NT at the time of Jesus. The NT is of Jesus' life, sayings, prophecy, history of the early church, and man in relations with Him.

The Bible is a Divine/human product. The OT points and is reflected in the NT. On the other hand, the NT reflects amplifies the OT.

All subjects and doctrines should be studied with this in view-- "Line upon line", precepts upon precepts..." Just a reminder. CM

dct112685 · March 2018

@C_M_ said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:
First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

Note: All Scripture is given by Inspiration. Meaning, God "breathe." Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Jesus used the OT. There was no NT at the time of Jesus. The NT is of Jesus' life, sayings, prophecy, history of the early church, and man in relations with Him.

The Bible is a Divine/human product. The OT points and is reflected in the NT. On the other hand, the NT reflects amplifies the OT.

All subjects and doctrines should be studied with this in view-- "Line upon line", precepts upon precepts..." Just a reminder. CM

Agreed (yes that happens) but I believe you should have directed this toward @Dave_L not me considering that I am the one that actually takes the whole Bible in this conversation.

C Mc · March 2018

You're right, but he can see it, just the same. Thanks. CM

C Mc · March 2018

Dave,
Please consider:

Note: All Scripture is given by Inspiration. Meaning, God "breathe." Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Jesus used the OT. There was no NT at the time of Jesus. The NT is of Jesus' life, sayings, prophecy, history of the early church, and man in relations with Him.

The Bible is a Divine/human product. The OT points and is reflected in the NT. On the other hand, the NT reflects amplifies the OT.

All subjects and doctrines should be studied with this in view-- "Line upon line", precepts upon precepts..." Just a reminder. CM

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@C_M_ said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
First, there is not an example of them not doing that either. Absence is not proof of non-existence. That being said, no I don't say put away the cross and take the sword Dave.

You seem really stuck on this and I'm done debating with you. I have shown clearly you take passages out of their context. But you ask me to prove something and only use the NT. I'm sorry, that is not good hermeneutics and I'm not going to play that game. We have the whole Bible, not just the NT.

Note: All Scripture is given by Inspiration. Meaning, God "breathe." Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Jesus used the OT. There was no NT at the time of Jesus. The NT is of Jesus' life, sayings, prophecy, history of the early church, and man in relations with Him.

The Bible is a Divine/human product. The OT points and is reflected in the NT. On the other hand, the NT reflects amplifies the OT.

All subjects and doctrines should be studied with this in view-- "Line upon line", precepts upon precepts..." Just a reminder. CM

Agreed (yes that happens) but I believe you should have directed this toward @Dave_L not me considering that I am the one that actually takes the whole Bible in this conversation.

Thanks for the discussion so far. But please understand that I take the entire Bible seriously. But based on Jeremiah and Paul, we are not under the Old Covenant. Keep in mind the Old Covenant was for wicked unbelievers. And if you want to live according to that, you are missing your calling. 1 Timothy 1:9–10

Jeremiah says:

““Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”” (Jeremiah 31:31–34)

Paul says:

“And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;” (Colossians 2:13–14)

@C_M_ said:
Dave,
Please consider:

Note: All Scripture is given by Inspiration. Meaning, God "breathe." Holy men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

Lastly, Jesus used the OT. There was no NT at the time of Jesus. The NT is of Jesus' life, sayings, prophecy, history of the early church, and man in relations with Him.

The Bible is a Divine/human product. The OT points and is reflected in the NT. On the other hand, the NT reflects amplifies the OT.

All subjects and doctrines should be studied with this in view-- "Line upon line", precepts upon precepts..." Just a reminder. CM

Thanks for the reminder. But perhaps you misunderstand what I'm saying. We are not under the violent Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant.

C Mc · March 2018

Thanks for your response. "We are not under the violent Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant", definitely requires a new thread. e.g.
1. What are they and the terms for each?
2. To whom it was made?
3. Was it temporary or permanent?
4. What was the purpose of the covenant in the first place?
5. Is it a new covenant or an extension of the old covenant? Meaning there is really only one covenant.
6. How was the Old Covenant and the New Covenant ratified? Does this determine it names "Old" or "New?"

These and other questions need to be asked and answered for an understanding of the subject matter. All of the Bible must be used. CM

dct112685 · March 2018

@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

And you cannot justify "Christian" violence, once regulated by a Law aimed at wicked unbelievers. And you cannot justify violence before the Law as normal for Christian ethics. OT believers did not have the Baptism (fullness) of the Holy Spirit. You cannot walk in the Spirit and hate enemies or kill them.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Dave_L · March 2018

@C_M_ said:
Thanks for your response. "We are not under the violent Old Covenant. We are under the New Covenant", definitely requires a new thread. e.g.
1. What are they and the terms for each?
2. To whom it was made?
3. Was it temporary or permanent?
4. What was the purpose of the covenant in the first place?
5. Is it a new covenant or an extension of the old covenant? Meaning there is really only one covenant.
6. How was the Old Covenant and the New Covenant ratified? Does this determine it names "Old" or "New?"

These and other questions need to be asked and answered for an understanding of the subject matter. All of the Bible must be used. CM

This would make a good thread. My position, should a thread develop is that:

Abraham and believers did not need the Law. They lived according to the two great commandments of love for God and people written in their heart. I.e., you did not need to tell them not to steal, etc.
God aimed the Ten Commandments at the wicked unbelievers. He harnessed their greed promising material blessing for obedience, and loss of material blessing and health for disobedience. (But he used the wicked to defend and preserve the spiritual seed in their midst.)
God removed the wicked unbelievers from Israel when he abolished circumcision and the Law on the cross. The believers accepted Jesus and remained Israel.
As with Abraham and all believers since Abel, we use the two great commandments in love for God and others.

more later if interested...

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.

Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.

Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?

Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.

Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.

Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?

Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.

Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.

Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?

And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.

Dave_L · March 2018

@davidtaylorjr said:

show previous quotes

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.

Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?

Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.

Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.

Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?

And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.

How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?

dct112685 · March 2018

@Dave_L said:

show previous quotes

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:
@C_M_ @Dave_L

Correct. The problem Dave is when they talk about the Old Covenant they are not talking about the Old Testament.

Yes, in English those words are synonyms. However, the Biblical writers would not have considered, and even Jesus would not have considered the OT the OT or the NT the NT. That was determined later by the church. You cannot use that as your argument.

Jesus said the Cup was the New Covenant in his Blood. He very well knew the difference.

We AGREE about not being under the Old Covenant. What I am telling you is that does not equal the entire Old Testament.

Agreed. But Jesus' word supersedes anything that contradicts it in the OT.

Um, you realize nothing actually does contradict right? And Jesus didn't speak about self-defense. I've already pointed this out but you seem to ignore that point. In fact, Jesus told them to purchase a sword if they did not have one already. Why would he tell them to do that?

Samuel hacked false prophets to death. That is not your calling under the NT.

Jesus rebuked Peter for using the sword and tells all of us to put it away when he told Peter to put it away.

Please explain how Samuel is relevant here?

And no, he was speaking to Peter directly about an act of aggression.

How do you turn the other cheek and defend yourself?

Not what that passage is talking about Dave I have alraedy shown that.

How do you justify violence as a Christian?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online 0