Firearms Refresher Course

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Rhoni

Well Bro. EB takes random shots most of the time maybe he'll hit you when he isn't looking

J/K

Rhoni do you believe that deadly force is allowed?

[Praxeas]

This is from Post #122

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Uh..Praxeas Peter didn't pray or have faith.

EB has failed to prove this assertion but instead keeps resorting to logical fallacies like below.

EB resorted to a strawman argument by changing it from Peter didn't pray or have faith to "Peter didn't pray in the garden" and "Peter wasn't the Pillar of faith" he was after Pentecost. But the truth is that his assertion was tha t Peter did NOT pray and did NOT have faith.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Praxeas, why is it that ever since I first gazed at one of your posts (FCF) you always mange to accuse (whoever you're arguing with) that they are trying to build a strawman argument with you?

The Peter situation is real simple; you are making it complex. You're wrong, live with it. Stop rabbit trailing and stick with the issue. Jesus didn't intend for Peter to be stabbing and slabbing the high priest's servant at Jesus' arrest. Jesus told Peter that Peter faith was as weak as your air rifle, and Peter sank because he was faithless and doubted. Countless Apostolic Ministers have preached these issues across the U.S.A. If this happens to be the first time you are hearing this information that is fine also, then all you need to do is pull up a chair and allow L&F to teach you.

Jesus never taught self defense nor had He ever asked Peter to snatch a pebble out of His hand.

Praxeas, the New Covenant Church is non-retaliation

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

What's wrong still upset? Easy does it Praxeas don't get your Dasiy air rifle in an uproar. Do you use it to shoot at your strawman?

I see your left cheek is still bruised


Score:
Wit=angry donut eater shoots evanglist in the brain
Nitwit=angry evangelist is still pulling buckshot out of his left cheek

Brother EB, with love and respect for you brother, I have to tell you that you are right in saying that the New Covenant Church is non-retaliatory.

This is the truth.

But, did you not read my post explainig this?

First of all, war in defense of your country is not retaliatory. Defending your family by whatever means possible, including a gun, is not retaliatory. Each is an expression of love and charity.

Having said that, neither war, defense of the family or...get this...watch this...capital punishment a function of the the N.T. kingdom of priests, which all are who are the body of Christ.

Neither in the O.T. were the function of these things mentioned above were with in the realm of the Priesthood. There were three classes of Law in the O.T., as you well know. There was the Moral Law, the Ceremonal Law and then there were the civil Law.

Meeting out capital punishment, going to war, did not fall within the realm of the priesthood. It fell to the function of the Civil Law which the Priest did not have oversight. The King and his servants, soldiers and minions had this responsibility.

It is exactly the same today. The kingdom of priests which is the church, the body of Christ attend to the things of the church. The word "priest" in its most basic meaning is a "bridge builder." We are to build bridges from a lot world of sin and shame to the home of the saved and blessed. The church is ordained and commissioned of God in the earth.

There is another entity that is ordained and commissioned of God which is Civil government that administers civil law. It is the civil law today as it has always been in the O.T. that dictates the terms and conditions of capital punishment and going to war.

Nothing has changed. It is the same as it always has been. The kingdom of Priests administers to the spiritual wholeness of man while the kingdom of Civil jurisprudence and movement of the host in armed conflict oversees this realm.

The Aaronic priesthood did not go to war. Neither do they go to war and administer capital punishment today. Neither is it the function of the church to guard your home, property, wife and children. That function is left to civil discretion of which every citizen is an integral part.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Brother Strange

Your question is beyond being ridiclous.

God is NOT now or has he ever been a cruel fiend lusting for blood, as you are trying to make it sound here.

The short answer to your misdirected question is: NO. God has never WANTED to see children or anyone else stoned todeath. He has never had a NEED for to see shed blood of children in the home or the slain on the battle field.

WANT is the wrong question since he has not now or ever has he had such a WANT in ages past. Since God is now and always has been a merciful God it is obvious that according to his nature, I suspect that he would WANT to see life spared, since he is a life giving God. But a WANT or a HANKERING to see death of children or anyone else is not true to his nature...no not NOW or has it EVER been his nature to WANT such a horrible thing.

Again the answer is NO. He does not WANT to see the death of a child or does he WANT to see the death of a soldier.

Your question is greatly misdirected...far from its mark.

Is it just me or does this sound strange to any one else? Okay, look at it here: Brother Strange said to me that God is still the same and blesses a believer when he partakes in war and when he kills his enemy. Brother Strange said that it was plainly the case since (he claims) there is no scriptures in the NT that say otherwise. Now he says that I am the one saying God is a "cruel fiend lusting for blood"? Really? I AM?? I am the one repeatedly saying that God is NOT FOR blood shed of this sort, and I am the one seeing blood here?

Brother Strange, my question is not misdirected. You just cannot answer it while still supporting your view. My question is based on what YOU SAID. I am only following YOUR REASONING. Also, in case you missed this bit of news; Deuteronomy 21 is GOD’S WORD, not mine. The same God that said to fight physical wars in the Old Testament, which is what you first presented as evidence to me, is the same God that commanded Deuteronomy 21. I knew you would not—and could not—answer Deuteronomy 21 while keeping your belief intact. And, yes I did say, “YOUR belief,” because what you are writing here is definitely not based on God’s.

Come on Brother Strange, make my day! and answer this in context with what you first wrote. Elder, with all due respect, I am not the one changing things around here. You are.

[TK Burk]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So what's your take on that verse? You claimed God DOES change and Malachi says otherwise, Is Malachi wrong? You need to do more than try to switch the burden of proof or introduce red herrings and explain this verse.

Nope, I never said that. Look at all my posts. Find one place I said this. You must not be following the posts very closely.

So, again, with what you said here; does God still want parents to have their rebellious children stoned as found in Deuteronomy 21? Here is your chance to show how Deuteronomy 21 fits in with your Malachi passage. oloroid

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is from Post #122
EB has failed to prove this assertion but instead keeps resorting to logical fallacies like below.

Interesting how you always do that to people who have an argument with you. You leave out the whole rest of my argument making it look like I'm saying that Peter NEVER prayed or EVER had faith.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's nice, but me....Im talking about what EB said and pointing out that if EB is right THEN PETER MUST NOT HAVE HAD FAITH AND OR PRAYED.

Those are Praxaes' words not mine. Lets keep this discussion on track.
Peter had problems prior to Pentecost that's a fact and no strawman.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

EB resorted to a strawman argument by changing it from Peter didn't pray or have faith to "Peter didn't pray in the garden" and "Peter wasn't the Pillar of faith" he was after Pentecost. But the truth is that his assertion was tha t Peter did NOT pray and did NOT have faith.

Praxeas I then posted the scripture.

Mat 26:40-46

"And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, COULD YOU WATCH WITH ME ONE HOUR? Watch and pray, that ye enter NOT into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, BUT THE FLESH IS WEAK. He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done. And he came and found them asleep AGAIN: for their eyes were heavy. And he left them, and went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then cometh he to his disciples, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going: behold, he is at hand that doth betray me."

Prior to this happening in the garden Jesus tells Peter that he would pray for Peter so that he would be strengthened. Did that mean that Jesus was praying that Peter would get physical strength? Jesus was praying for Peter's spiritual strength. Remember Peter's spirit was willing but his flesh was weak, not his physical flesh, but a spiritual condition. Peter sinks because although he had zeal (spirit) he doubted (flesh) because the winds and waves were contrary, and he doubted that he would be able to make it to Jesus. Peter was not a prayer warrior or a pillar of faith prior to Pentecost. Peter still had problems that show up and Paul withstands Peter over it.

Mat 14:24-31

"But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, SAVE ME. And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of LITTLE FAITH, wherefore didst thou DOUBT?"

Where Jesus tells Peter that Peter has "little faith" Jesus uses the Greek word ολιγόπιστος , which means "no belief", lack of trust. Jesus was teling Peter that Peter really was of no faith. Also when looking at the word "doubt" in the Greek Jesus is teling Peter that he was hesitating, pausing, not continuing in a forward motion.

Peter's whole episode of his attempt of walking on the water was more of Peter's spirit be willing and his weak flesh.

Peter had problems that needed the Holy Ghost to help him along.

Remeber Jesus tells Peter in Luk 22:32

"But I have prayed for thee, that thy FAITH FAIL NOT: and when thou art CONVERTED, strengthen thy brethren."

Peter was water weak and Jesus warned His friend of the road that lay ahead. The words that Jesus spoke to Peter in the Greek are πίστις εκλειπω μή "faith not cease" ceasing means to discontinue. Peter did not only deny Jesus, Peter cursed Jesus.

I hope I have proven my point. Peter needed a day of Pentecost worse than the breath of life.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

Nope, I never said that. Look at all my posts. Find one place I said this. You must not be following the posts very closely.

So, again, with what you said here; does God still want parents to have their rebellious children stoned as found in Deuteronomy 21? Here is your chance to show how Deuteronomy 21 fits in with your Malachi passage. oloroid

Do you know what the word implied means?

Originally Posted by Lost and Found

God does not change? Are you serious? You cannot be a New Testament believer and say that this is accurate.

So, are we still to kill disobedient children by stoning? Remember, this is from the same One God.

You IMPLIED that God does change. Otherwise why word this the way you did? Do you agree with me that God does not change? You keep acting as thouth the verse in Malachi is a challange to something you said...if it's NOT that God can change, what is it?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Interesting how you always do that to people who have an argument with you. You leave out the whole rest of my argument making it look like I'm saying that Peter NEVER prayed or EVER had faith.

You DID say "Peter didn't pray or have faith"...I didn't twist that or make that up. The rest of your "argument" was an attempt to prove that but the rest of the argument does NOT support the assertion, that is why it was left out. Now, if perhaps you did not really mean to say "Peter didn't pray or have faith"....then you should accept the blame, turn the other cheeck (since the other one is full of buckshot) and admit you erred in how you worded this.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Those are Praxaes' words not mine. Lets keep this discussion on track.
Peter had problems prior to Pentecost that's a fact and no strawman.

No, I quoted you verbatim. Now afterwords you are trying to back peddle. It would look better for you if you just say you worded that wrong. But I have you on record saying Peter didn't have faith or pray.