Romans 12:18 KJV
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
Hebrews 12:14 says:
“Follow peace with all
men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:”
So Romans 12:18 is in view and context to following after peace with all men.
So I don’t think Romans 12:18 is talking about how we should not make peace with all men.
I believe Romans 12:18 is talking about different personalities traits among men who are more prone to making peace with others, but this does not free our obligation in following peace with all men. At the very least, we should pray and do good towards our enemies. We should love our enemies as Jesus said. You cannot love your enemy if you shoot them dead in self defense.
Also, when I asked you how do you view New Testament Non-Violence, this appears to be in view that you can have a weapon to defend yourself if necessary. But again, besides the incident with Peter misusing the sword, we don’t see anywhere else in the New Testament where the disciples had swords let alone protecting themselves with them.
You said:
It is. I am successfully showing that they did have swords and you are unsuccessfully claiming they didn't. And I'm not going on your "maybe". I'm not going on what you meant. I am going on what you said.
This is just childish. Nowhere did I tell you before that when Jesus was arrested that the disciples did not have swords. I already told you this several times unless you hit your head and forgot about our previous conversations. So you should have known that was not what I was referring to. You are just trying to catch me in my words (not being perfectly communicated in one post) so as to make a case that I simply did not make. Instead of admitting that you are wrong here, you simply doubled down. Did I admit that my words were not perfect in that one post and could seem confusing? Yes. But you should have known that is not what I meant by our previous conversations. So you are trying to twist my words from my previous conversations to make a case that I did not even make. So you are not being honest here with everything that I stated (unless you ignored what I said previously or you forgot about it).
You said:
Not going to bother with this. The swords had nothing to do with the prophesy as I have clearly shown. The Bible gives and explains the prophesy. Your attempt to include it is not biblical and I do not accept it. Peter was not a transgressor in this prophesy. The Bible explains the prophesy and that's enough for me.
So you believe the prophetic statement of being numbered with the transgressors in Luke 22:37 was just strung in between Luke 22:36 and Luke 22:38 about a conversation about swords was just a random occurrence that in no way relates? Is God the author of confusion? This is what you must believe if you think Luke 22:37 has no bearing in context to the immediate conversation or context involved. In other words, it seems like just because you don’t like the idea of the swords being tied in with Jesus being numbered with the transgressors in addition to Mark 15:27-28.
You said:
Your logic is flawed and so are your accusations. I never said or pretend they were carrying swords. I stated that the Bible doesn't say either way. Your logic is that they would've fought back if they had swords. That's stupid. It's short sided. But if you don't understand why Jesus didn't refer to guns and deny obvious reasoning, I am not surprised.
While you did not say it in the past tense, you said it in your very next post.
You said, I quote:
“Historically, it is not surprising that some disciples had swords. They traveled alot and there were robbers on the roads. The disciples were being trained, but they also were a security team. It was a deterrent to travel in large groups and even more so if they were armed. Those things are not in the Bible, but historically, they are correct.” Quote by: FHII.
This looks to me like you are not being honest with us in what you really believe from the very beginning. While it is true that you never said in the past tense they were carrying swords, in your very next post you said that they did carry swords. So you are not being consistent in what you are saying here.
You said:
When did I say that? Did you catch the point I made when I said I don't own a gun? Where did I say that even if we have it we must use it?
Your very next post of you saying that some disciples historically had swords and how they were a security team to protect themselves against robbers on the road. Funny, how you did not provide any reliable historical sources to prove your words here.
You said:
This is rediculous... Your interpretation of prophecy is false, your accounts of what I said is false and your accounts of the Bible is at worse false and at best mere speculation.
It’s not speculation unless you believe Jesus throws in prophecies at random in mid-conversation that has nothing to do with what He was talking about.
You said:
Go ahead and defend yourself, but bother no more with it.
I am not defending myself, but I am defending what the Bible says.