@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:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.

And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.

We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.

But thanks for the link just the same.

Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.

And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.

Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.

The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?

Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".

Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.

God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.

He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.

You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.

You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.

If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.

No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.

If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.

Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?

Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.

We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.

If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.

I think you need to look up the word ethics...

eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"

The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......

And you think God changed His moral standard?

Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.

Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.

But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.

Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.

How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?

See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

@C_M_ said:

@Dave_L said:

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

Brethren,
There needs to be a re-reading of the Sermon on the Mount, in general; and the Beatitudes, in particular. Follow the life and teachings of Jesus. We are to trust God in all things, at all times. CM

Can you provide scriptural evidence where the disciples did not follow the Sermon? I can show many examples where they did. And not one mention of violence on their part. The only exception was Peter trying to defend Jesus with the sword, in which case Jesus rebuked him, and told us all to put away the sword along with Peter.

@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:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.

And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.

We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.

But thanks for the link just the same.

Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.

And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.

Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.

The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?

Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".

Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.

God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.

He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.

You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.

You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.

If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.

No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.

If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.

Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?

Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.

We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.

If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.

I think you need to look up the word ethics...

eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"

The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......

And you think God changed His moral standard?

Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.

Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.

But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.

Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.

How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?

See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

When being persecuted for their FAITH. Different scenario Dave.

Paul fell among robbers and other situations where persecution was not the issue. Yet he taught us to leave vengeance in God's hands and not our own.

Besides, are we to interview attackers to find out if it is a faith issue or not? Or just turn the other cheek as Jesus 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:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.

And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.

We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.

But thanks for the link just the same.

Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.

And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.

Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.

The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?

Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".

Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.

God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.

He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.

You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.

You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.

If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.

No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.

If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.

Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?

Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.

We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.

If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.

I think you need to look up the word ethics...

eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"

The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......

And you think God changed His moral standard?

Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.

Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.

But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.

Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.

How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?

See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

When being persecuted for their FAITH. Different scenario Dave.

Paul fell among robbers and other situations where persecution was not the issue. Yet he taught us to leave vengeance in God's hands and not our own.

Besides, are we to interview attackers to find out if it is a faith issue or not? Or just turn the other cheek as Jesus said?

Turn the other cheek is not about self-defense. Good grief, round the merry go round we go again. You sir, are a Pharisee.

How about loving enemies? Do you interview them first to see if they are just thugs, or religious persecutors?

@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:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.

And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.

We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.

But thanks for the link just the same.

Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.

And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.

Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.

The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?

Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".

Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.

God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.

He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.

You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.

You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.

If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.

No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.

If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.

Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?

Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.

We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.

If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.

I think you need to look up the word ethics...

eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"

The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......

And you think God changed His moral standard?

Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.

Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.

But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.

Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.

How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?

See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

When being persecuted for their FAITH. Different scenario Dave.

Paul fell among robbers and other situations where persecution was not the issue. Yet he taught us to leave vengeance in God's hands and not our own.

Besides, are we to interview attackers to find out if it is a faith issue or not? Or just turn the other cheek as Jesus said?

Turn the other cheek is not about self-defense. Good grief, round the merry go round we go again. You sir, are a Pharisee.

How about loving enemies? Do you interview them first to see if they are just thugs, or religious persecutors?

No

How then do you know how to react? If Jesus left loopholes in his teaching as you assume?

@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:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.

And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.

We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.

But thanks for the link just the same.

Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.

And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.

Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.

The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?

Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".

Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.

God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.

He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.

You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.

You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.

If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.

No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.

If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.

Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?

Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.

We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.

If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.

I think you need to look up the word ethics...

eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"

The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......

And you think God changed His moral standard?

Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.

Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.

But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.

Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.

How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?

See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

When being persecuted for their FAITH. Different scenario Dave.

Paul fell among robbers and other situations where persecution was not the issue. Yet he taught us to leave vengeance in God's hands and not our own.

Besides, are we to interview attackers to find out if it is a faith issue or not? Or just turn the other cheek as Jesus said?

Turn the other cheek is not about self-defense. Good grief, round the merry go round we go again. You sir, are a Pharisee.

How about loving enemies? Do you interview them first to see if they are just thugs, or religious persecutors?

No

How then do you know how to react? If Jesus left loopholes in his teaching as you assume?

Jesus didn't teach on this. Exodus says you will not be held responsible.

“realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers—in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.” (1 Timothy 1:9–10) (NET)

We cannot use civil Law written for unbelievers under the OT to justify Christian violence under the NT.

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:

@davidtaylorjr said:

@Dave_L said:
Thanks David. I sampled portions but do not agree with the reliance on OT law as the basis of the argument. God gave the Law to no other group than those he brought out of Egypt. It belongs to no other group or nation.

And we cannot take it upon ourselves to force it on others, much less live according to its standards.

We are under the NT Law of Christ which forbids violence and demands separation from the world, not imposing a misunderstood belief system upon it.

But thanks for the link just the same.

Um, it went all the way back to Genesis. Did you actually watch the part at the end about self defense? We have a moral obligation to self defense biblically.

And it doesn't matter what you think, the OT is still Scripture and still applicable. The presentation covered that too. There were MANY covenants in Scripture. Christ did not abololish all of those covenants.

Thanks, but the New Covenant supersedes all other covenants for the Christian. There is no moral obligation for Christians to practice self-defence under the New Covenant. In fact, it forbids it for any Christian at a violent level.

The NT does not supersede all other covenants. It can't. Are you honestly saying that the Noahic Covenant has been superseded?

Notice I said the NT supersedes all other covenants for "christians".

Yes which means it must also supersede the Noahic Covenant.

The New Covenant overrides any other covenant if the older covenant contradicts the New as it applies to Christians.

God ordained the sword for the punishment of evildoers by the civil magistrate, not the church.

He also ordained it in self-defense and also commanded that we protect the innocent and the weak. Those were not superseded by anything in the NT no matter how much you try to twist what the NT actually said into something it did not actually say.

You cannot back this claim from the NT. It is not there. When violence erupted, the believers fled. None of them stayed to fight.

You don't have to back it from the NT that is the whole point.

If your position is correct, we would see it in action in the NT. We do not. We instead see people living the Sermon on the Mount in every detail of their lives, especially in areas of non-resistance, loving enemies, putting away the sword and trusting God as the avenger of wrath instead of themselves.

No that is what you see because you are reading into the text. What I see because I am not reading into the text is that the scenarios you think are there aren't there at all.

If you are reading the text, show Christians using violence to defend themselves in the NT. The reason you cannot produce this, is because they did the exact opposite of what you believe and teach.

Why are you so hung up on thinking if it isn't in the NT it isn't applicable?

Because we are under a completely different set of ethics in the NT.

We are under different morals? No sir. That is biblically and theologically incorrect.

If you want to live under the Law, written for kidnappers, rapists, hooligans and worse, have at it. We are not under their system of forced ethics.

I think you need to look up the word ethics...

eth·ic
ˈeTHik/Submit
noun
1.
a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct.
"the puritan ethic was being replaced by the hedonist ethic"

The OT ethic was replaced by the NT ethic......

And you think God changed His moral standard?

Not in the least. That is why we love our enemies under the NT instead of killing them. In fact, we love him and his word more than we do our own lives, and would rather die than compromise Jesus' words about non-violence. At least some of us...that is.

Except that isn't what the NT teaches. I agree we would die for Christ, but we would not die needlessly or not protect the innocent.

But, how can you know if your position is correct? The examples of those who gave their lives for Christ in the NT show they believed exactly opposite from what you believe and teach.

Key phrase: "Gave thier lives for Christ" that isn't what we are talking about here.

How can you give your life for Christ by squeezing the trigger as you preach?

See you mix things that aren't together. We are talking about self-defense. There isn't preaching going on in that moment, there is survival.

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

When being persecuted for their FAITH. Different scenario Dave.

Paul fell among robbers and other situations where persecution was not the issue. Yet he taught us to leave vengeance in God's hands and not our own.

Besides, are we to interview attackers to find out if it is a faith issue or not? Or just turn the other cheek as Jesus said?

Turn the other cheek is not about self-defense. Good grief, round the merry go round we go again. You sir, are a Pharisee.

How about loving enemies? Do you interview them first to see if they are just thugs, or religious persecutors?

No

How then do you know how to react? If Jesus left loopholes in his teaching as you assume?

Jesus didn't teach on this. Exodus says you will not be held responsible.

“realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers—in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.” (1 Timothy 1:9–10) (NET)

We cannot use civil Law written for unbelievers under the OT to justify Christian violence under the NT.

First, it wasn't written to unbelievers. It was written to Israel, the only believers at the time.

Second, the civil law and moral laws criss-cross at some parts. The only laws we fully disregard are the ceremonial laws.

Paul says you are wrong. Israel was mostly unbelievers. “But God turned away from them and gave them over to worship the host of heaven, as it is written in the book of the prophets: ‘It was not to me that you offered slain animals and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, was it, house of Israel? But you took along the tabernacle of Moloch and the star of the god Rephan, the images you made to worship, but I will deport you beyond Babylon.’” (Acts 7:42–43)

You cannot divide the law up into civil, ceremonial, and moral. We have ZERO support from scripture for doing this. Christ abolished all of the Law on the cross.

We have the Two Great Commandments the Ten Commandments HUNG from. The Ten are gone, the Two remain and are the same as Abraham, Abel Job and all believers had under the OT.

@C_M_ said:

@C_M_ said:

@Dave_L said:

You cannot follow Jesus and blow away enemies you are supposed to love.

Loving your enemies does not mean you let them kill you for any reason. That's absurd and nowhere found in the Bible.

The disciples ran and hid. But did not resist violence with violence when cornered.

Brethren,
There needs to be a re-reading of the Sermon on the Mount, in general; and the Beatitudes, in particular. Follow the life and teachings of Jesus. We are to trust God in all things, at all times. CM

---

God is the Christian's Protector! No swords or Guns. Hear the Word of the Lord through the Psalmist (Psalm 37):

9 For evildoers shall be cut off;
But those who wait on the LORD,
They shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while and the wicked shall be no more;
Indeed, you will look carefully for his place,
But it shall be no more.
11 But the meek shall inherit the earth,
And shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

12 The wicked plots against the just,
And gnashes at him with his teeth.
13 The Lord laughs at him,
For He sees that his day is coming.
## 14 The wicked have drawn the sword

And have bent their bow,

To cast down the poor and needy,

To slay those who are of upright conduct.

15 Their sword shall enter their own heart,

And their bows shall be broken...

20 But the wicked shall perish;
And the enemies of the LORD,
Like the splendor of the meadows, shall vanish.
Into smoke they shall vanish away...

23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD,
And He delights in his way.
24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down;
For the LORD upholds him with His hand.

25 I have been young, and now am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Nor his descendants begging bread.
26 He is ever merciful, and lends;
And his descendants are blessed.

27 Depart from evil, and do good;
And dwell forevermore.
# 28 For the LORD loves justice,

And does not forsake His saints;

They are preserved forever,

But the descendants of the wicked shall be cut off.

29 The righteous shall inherit the land,

And dwell in it forever.

30 The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom,
And his tongue talks of justice.
31 The law of his God is in his heart;
None of his steps shall slide.

32 The wicked watches the righteous,

And seeks to slay him.

33 The LORD will not leave him in his hand,

Nor condemn him when he is judged.

34 Wait on the LORD, And keep His way,
And He shall exalt you to inherit the land;
When the wicked are cut off, you shall see it.
35 I have seen the wicked in great power,
And spreading himself like a native green tree.
36 Yet he passed away, and behold, he was no more;
Indeed I sought him, but he could not be found.

37 Mark the blameless man, and observe the upright;

For the future of that man is peace.

38 But the transgressors shall be destroyed together;

The future of the wicked shall be cut off.

39 But the salvation of the righteous is from the LORD;
He is their strength in the time of trouble.
## 40 And the LORD shall help them and deliver them;

He shall deliver them from the wicked,

And save them,

Because they trust in Him.

Your position is confirmed by the Word of God. We don't need guns. God will take care of his people (Ps 37: 7, 8):

7. Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for Him;
Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way,
Because of the man who brings wicked schemes to pass.
8. Cease from anger, and forsake wrath;
Do not fret—it only causes harm. CM

-- The New King James Version. (1982). (Ps 37:7–8). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Thanks CM.

Jesus asked:

“And which of you by worrying [buying guns] can add even one hour to his life?” (Matthew 6:27) (NET)

Job understood this saying:

“Since man’s days are determined, the number of his months is under your control; you have set his limit and he cannot pass it.” (Job 14:5) (NET)