And I believe that I follow men who have that annointing along with knowledge. And you and I disagree. So what settles the matter? Obviously Scripture.
Please present physical violence, use of lethal force, revolution, and/or war as being advocated or presented by example among those living under the New Covenant in the New Testament Church. Please commit to not posting until you do. That will settle the issue.
Please present violence advocated or presented by example among those living under the New Covenant. Please commit to not posting until you do. That will settle the issue.
Again, I've mentioned that an argument from silence is no argument. Plus, I can list many places where the apostles quoted directly from the case laws of the old as still binding. I assume the the provisions of the Old are still in force until changed in the New. I don't make the leap to assume discontinuation if they are not mentioned. There is no conflict between the covenants. Same God with the one plan of redemption.
__________________ "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it."
Please present physical violence, use of lethal force, revolution, and/or war as being advocated or presented by example among those living under the New Covenant in the New Testament Church. Please commit to not posting until you do. That will settle the issue.
The question above is misleading, but in another post, you asked if Jesus would tell His servants to fight.
I present the following scripture.
Jesus speaking--
Lu 22:36
Then said he 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.
Why would he tell people to buy a sword, to filet their fish with???
His disciples even carried swords. Not once did Jesus tell them to get rid of it.
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
The question above is misleading, but in another post, you asked if Jesus would tell His servants to fight.
I present the following scripture.
Jesus speaking--
Lu 22:36
Then said he 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.
Why would he tell people to buy a sword, to filet their fish with???
His disciples even carried swords. Not once did Jesus tell them to get rid of it.
In our modern world we think of a sword as something to kill with. However, in the ancient world it was used to protect one's self on perilous journeys. Traveling long expanses of wilderness presented dangers ranging from lions to bears in biblical times. Christ's statement may also have been a figure of speech indicating that the time was coming when the disciples would face fearce opposition to their preaching the gospe. This would explain why when they left to literally obey him and brought two swords Jesus said, "It is enough." It's possible that they misunderstood him as was pretty common with them. Jesus rebuked Peter strongly for using the sword against another person and instead sought to heal the man Peter was willing to engage in mortal combat with. When the details are considered one is hard pressed to demonstrate that Jesus wanted them to pack swords to slice up the Romans. Besides...two was enough in Christ's eyes. It's unclear as to if Jesus meant that the two swords were enough for the group of twelve, sufficient to protect them from beasts as they traveled or if the statement, "It is enough." is aimed at restraining their actions as though they misunderstood him. If viewed in this way Christ's words, "It is enough.", would be a strong indicator that they were to leave the swords alone. However, Peter, in his carnality, chose to secretely carry a sword with him. Well intentioned of course, intending to defend Jesus and protect him from what was indeed his mission...which was to die for mankind.
Hense we see carnal reasoning and the useage of violence contrasted with the surrender of God's will and purpose no matter how dreadful.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
In our modern world we think of a sword as something to kill with. However, in the ancient world it was used to protect one's self on perilous journeys. Traveling long expanses of wilderness presented dangers ranging from lions to bears in biblical times. Christ's statement may also have been a figure of speech indicating that the time was coming when the disciples would face fearce opposition to their preaching the gospe. This would explain why when they left to literally obey him and brought two swords Jesus said, "It is enough." It's possible that they misunderstood him as was pretty common with them. Jesus rebuked Peter strongly for using the sword against another person and instead sought to heal the man Peter was willing to engage in mortal combat with. When the details are considered one is hard pressed to demonstrate that Jesus wanted them to pack swords to slice up the Romans. Besides...two was enough in Christ's eyes. It's unclear as to if Jesus meant that the two swords were enough for the group of twelve, sufficient to protect them from beasts as they traveled or if the statement, "It is enough." is aimed at restraining their actions as though they misunderstood him. If viewed in this way Christ's words, "It is enough.", would be a strong indicator that they were to leave the swords alone. However, Peter, in his carnality, chose to secretely carry a sword with him. Well intentioned of course, intending to defend Jesus and protect him from what was indeed his mission...which was to die for mankind.
Hense we see carnal reasoning and the useage of violence contrasted with the surrender of God's will and purpose no matter how dreadful.
Chris, do you have Biblical proof? I mean, of course the swords were for self-defense! So why did Jesus tell them that if they didn't have one, to sell their coat and buy one? Didn't they trust Jesus and God to protect them? After all, that's the question you asked me earlier, remember?
__________________
I've gone and done it now! I'm on Facebook!!!
Chris, do you have Biblical proof? I mean, of course the swords were for self-defense! So why did Jesus tell them that if they didn't have one, to sell their coat and buy one? Didn't they trust Jesus and God to protect them? After all, that's the question you asked me earlier, remember?
I believe they misunderstood Jesus. David K. Bernard wrote regarding this saying,
Quote:
"Why did Jesus tell His disciples on one occasion to
carry swords? (Luke 22:35-38). After the Last Supper,
Jesus gave new instructions to His disciples relative to the
preaching of the gospel. Earlier in His ministry, He had
sent them out without purse (money) or bag (supply of
food), telling them to depend upon the hospitality of the
people. Now, however, He told them to take purse, bag,
and sword. Possibly, He meant for them to take swords for
protection against wild beasts and robbers (to frighten off
or ward off the latter, not to kill them).
More probably, His allusion to the sword was
metaphoric. In other words, He was warning that they
would no longer enjoy a hearty welcome in every place,
but would face bitter opposition. Therefore, they should
learn to provide for themselves and to brace themselves
spiritually against attack and persecution.
Upon hearing this, the disciples found two swords
and brought them to Christ. He told them, “It is enough.”
Two swords are not adequate for twelve men. Apparently,
the disciples failed to understand Christ’s real meaning
at that time. When He saw them bringing two literal
swords, He decided to drop the subject. This view receives
support from Christ’s admonition to Peter a short time
later. When Peter actually tried to use one of these swords
in Christ’s defense, He forbade him with words that
denounce all killing. Furthermore, never again do we hear
of the disciples resisting violence with violence, although
they were subjected to violence many times."
- David K. Bernard, Practical Holiness
After much prayer and soul searching I find the above interpretation to be in harmony with the Spirit of Christ.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Chris, did you read it? He uses words like 'probably' and 'more probably'. He's not even sure himself. It's just his opinion based on supposition.
Bro. Bernard uses those words because there are others who may disagree. He isn't being dogmatic so as to establish a dogma on the issue. I see it as both wise and compelling.
He says "probably"...after reviewing this interpretation in light of Scripture, namely the teachings of Jesus, I'd say assuredly.
Don't mistaken manners for uncertainty.
If Jesus intended them to use the swords to defend themselves...why did he rebuke Peter for using it in the garden. Ah, but one may say that it was because Peter was unknowingly thwarting salvation's plan. Oh but dear friend, why then don't we see Peter using this sword elsewhere, he had ample need and opportunity to defend himself later when persecuted. However, Peter never uses violence again...ultimately embracing his own martyrdom.
I find it troubling that Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to be obedient to their Allah...but so few Christians are willing to be like Christ. I present to you that real Christianity isn't popular and isn't met with ticker-tape parades. The cross is a symbol of death...agonizing death. Death to self, death to sin, death to this world. And this cross is a cross that will cost the seeker who truly seeks to follow the way of the sandaled feet of the Galilean carpenter.
__________________
"For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jeremiah 29:11 (English Standard Version)
Hybrid Mode
