John UK You say â€śI can also show you from scripture (NT) where God instructs about law-keeping and justice and punishments.â€ť But unless I missed some posts, most of those I have seen weâ€™re in reference to interpersonal conflict and not containing criminal behavior. Please correct what I may have missed. (As I said before, I am on sporadically and the app only loads the last few dozen or so comments,)
B. McC... Maybe Iâ€™m reading it wrong, but it seems like you accused me of misleading with the passage and at the same time still have not answered the question. So, again; When Christ told the apostles to sell a cloak to buy a sword if they didnâ€™t have one, to which possessing a weapon was not only lawful, but prudent, what was His goal? Useless weight? Cutting cheese? Starting a legally instituted police force? Or personal protection?
B. McC.... What? That wasnâ€™t remotely clear. Jesus wasnâ€™t promoting a police state to which He was in charge. (Although many hopes he was, to their mistake,) He told the disciples to carry a sword because it was not only legal, but prudent.
I know I have missed some of the responses to this, but the app only loads the last few dozen, so, if Inam retreading ground covered, I apologize. UKâ€”Iâ€™m not certain how things work where you are, but in the US, NO one, law enforcement or military, is ever taught to shoot to wound. (Unless riot control using rubber bullets,) This goes for civilians as well, in a litigation-centered society the laws have made intentionally wounding someone a crimeâ€”understand why; if you are using a deadly weapon, it implies the need for deadly force. If it could have been solved without deadly force, why use a deadly weapon.
And to B. McC... a poor society who to entrust citizens to carry a sword?
â€śThen said he (Jesus, in case you didnâ€™t realize,) unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.â€ť Luke 22:36
Well stated US, I see many arguments to trust God in this areaâ€”by people who obviously make preparations in others. I believe I said it earlier (or thought it, lol,) but there is a difference between choosing to let your life be taken as a marytr, and allowing others to die when you have the ability to save them.
â€śDefend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.â€ť Psalms 82:3-4
John UK, No, there were only two swordsâ€¦ Jesus said two would be enough. So Iâ€™m supposing in context that means the entire congregation wouldnâ€™t have to be alarmed, just one sixth of them?
Adriel, Certainly you jest. First, remember that he term Christian was first used as a derogatory term in Antioch by people who hated Christâ€”Not as a standard badge given to us by Christ. Secondlyâ€¦ And more importantlyâ€¦ you continue to misappropriate a Scripture that was clearly reflecting the saving path of Christ at that moment, and not a generalized promise given to all believers. (Not every time we are attacked can we called 12 legions of angels inâ€¦ ) When you misuse Scripture like that, you are no better than any other false doctrine trying to wield its own opinions over the Word of God.
Adriel Unless I am reading your response incorrectly, I feel you are misappropriating a passage clearly reflecting Christ as one that applies to Christians in general. Christ told Peter to put up his sword because Christ knew He needed to make an atonement for sin. Not as a â€śanytime someone wants to do violence, let them.â€ť I mean, seriouslyâ€”this is the same Christ that TOLD the apostles to sell a cloak to buy a sword if they couldnâ€™t afford it. This whole argument reminds me of that crazy woman preacher in Colorado a few years ago who told her congregation that if a man broke in to rape their wives, the wives should not fight it and the husband should let it happen because her Jesus would prefer them to not defend themselvesâ€”and Scripture said if someone tries to take something by force you should just give it to them anyway. Sheâ€™s not worshiping the same Jesus I do.
John UKâ€”Peter was rejecting the plan for Christ to die, not his own death. Read the context. Also, as from the other post, it still hasnâ€™t been explained why there was not only in your mind the disannulment of the ceremonial lawâ€¦ But a supposed disannulment of personal protection and responsibility to keep other safe? Someone choosing to be a marytr for Christ is noble. Someone watching others dieâ€¦ Stupidity. This is the same idea that has many Christians doing nothing about abortion. (other than supporting it like they do in Nebraska.)
Several years ago, in IFB circles, there was a book running around called â€śOne book, rightly dividedâ€¦â€ś It taught a version of hyper dispensationalism that is anti-biblical, and it led many well-intentioned Christians astray because of their lack of knowledge in the Scriptures. In general, dispensationalism is not biblical as it takes a unified progression of Scripture and attempts to tear it into tiny pieces for each group. (for instance, there are some dispensationalists that believe that the teaching of Jesus was only applicable for Jews of that day, and we Christians are not under thatâ€¦ Hence when Christ said â€śWhosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.â€ť Luke 16:18 He was talking to Jews, so we as gentiles could divorce and remarry at will.
As I saidâ€¦ Why is it that you assume that you must have a new testament example of a behavior that is clearly defined by Old Testament commandment? To me, your argument is like a Preacher I heard about 25 years ago who was preaching against â€świre rimmed eyeglassesâ€ť because they were the â€śinâ€ť thing. All the old time pastors in the 50s and 60s didnâ€™t wear wire rimmed glasses, so they must be wrong.
I just reread my post, and wanted to add this. There is no race on earthâ€¦ No creed on earthâ€¦ That is great and perfect. There are individuals that are horrible in every group. My point was to stand against an idea that one â€śraceâ€ś is better than any otherâ€¦ Because that was what I felt the allusion was. But after reading my former comment, Iâ€™m not sure if everyone would get that out of thereâ€¦ Hence this. I need more caffeine in my life.
Joel; not trying to be mean or rude, (it comes naturally, I do not have to try,) but your romanticization of Jews is problematic. I am not an anti-Semiteâ€¦ far from itâ€”But trust me, there are jerks in every walk of life. There are people who â€śsuck the system dryâ€ś in every race and creed on the earth. To make a blanket statement like you did is a little shortsighted and is one of the things that causes that type of anti-Semitic reaction from others. Before anybody complains, thereâ€™s good people from all walks of life as wellâ€” but we are all fallen and in need of graceâ€¦ Including the Jews
John UK, I will answer your question with a question. We know, by Christâ€™s own words:
â€śThink not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.â€ť (Matthew 5:17-18) And we know that old testament law specifies the protection of oneâ€™s home and family. I do not personally recall there ever being instance in the New Testament where someone dealt with a transgender personâ€”however from Biblical context I know what is expected of me when I deal with them. So my question, just because someone is not â€śdoing somethingâ€ś in the New Testament, does that rule out Biblical context? Especially when Christ himself said that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill?
Biologically everyone is either an XX (what normal people call female) and XY (what normal people call male,) I vote to change ALL conversations/postings to that. X, can you do this? It is Yâ€™s turn Etc... postings on bathrooms would be easier to understand. Just saying.
Romans 14:5-6 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
Gross immoral character? And pray tell me which 2016 candidate (much less 2020) did not have that? When you have to choose between two piles of poo, you pick the poo that benefits you. What we have was fertilizer and something that would spread e-coli. They both stunk, but Hillary was a disease. At least Trump is growing something.