Biblical justification for harming or killing followers of Jesus

[Matthias]

...and your continual reposting of that inflammatory sentence ….

It’s the verbatim teaching of a “Christian” member of this online community. A few “Christian” members have embraced it, which is tragic.

… is nothing more than gaslighting.

What have you done to help them reject the doctrine? What have you done to warn others against it?

It really hurts your cause célèbre.

The ”You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill” doctrine is wickedness masquerading as righteousness.

 

[doctrox]

What have you done to help them reject the doctrine?

Rather, why have you reduced yourself to gaslighting with the inflammatory sentence?

What have you done to warn others against it?

I reverence and reference the word of God and not heretics or "early church fathers"

 

[Matthias]

Rather, why have you reduced yourself to gaslighting with the inflammatory sentence?

I haven’t. I’m concerned these people. You obviously aren’t, and so you’ve done nothing to help them.

”You aren’t following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”

That’s the devil talking. That is what you should be writing against, rather than writing against a pastor who is.

I reverence and reference the word of God and not heretics or "early church fathers"

Church history is important.

 

[doctrox]

Jesus condemned weaponry by saying that all who use the sword will perish by the sword.

Again, you're drawing a fallacious conclusion ala "Jesus condemned weaponry." You're consistently unable to prove that presumption with scripture.

And your (A.I.-assisted) following screed is yet another non sequitur:

When Jesus said buy a sword, and the disciples replied they had two swords, Jesus said that was enough.

Thus, the swords were not for self defense or for killing those who attack. Two swords would not be nearly enough to combat the Roman soldiers who were coming to arrest Jesus.

In fact, when Peter used his sword to cut off someone’s ear, Jesus healed the ear and scolded Peter to put away his sword.

Jesus condemned weaponry by saying that all who use the sword will perish by the sword.

Those two swords were enough for Jesus to be reckoned among the transgressors. The Roman soldiers could see the swords and arrest Jesus for being an instigator of armed rebellion against the empire.

"Jesus reckoned among the transgressors" refers to the fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 53:12) where Jesus was treated, condemned, and executed as a common criminal, specifically by being crucified between two thieves. This act represents his deep identification with sinful humanity, substituting himself in the place of sinners to achieve atonement and reconciliation with God.

You added “which includes protecting them from harm” to that verse in order to justify believers killing in self defense.

The readers can clearly see that I "added" nothing to any verse. Rather, I quoted the relevant scripture thusly: "hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel". Pls stop your false accusations, "brother."

One final point: during the height of the tribulation, we see the two witnesses given power that:

" ... if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this
manner be killed." (Rev. 11:5)

Depending on how you interpret WHO the two witnesses are, it becomes apparent that the power of Elijah will be restored in some fashion to tribulation saints (see 2 Kings 2).

you’ve done nothing to help them.

...you're doing even less "to help them"...

Church history is important.

So is tonight's dinner.

 

[Matthias]

...you're doing even less "to help them"...

Writing against this doctrine of demons does much more to help them, and others, than doing nothing does.

So is tonight's dinner.

 

[doctrox]

.

Writing against this doctrine of demons...

"For all the Athenians and strangers which were there spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing." (Acts 17)

You shouldn't try to manipulate God or get his (or others') attention simply by rambling or reciting endless, empty phrases.
.

 

[Matthias]

You shouldn't try to manipulate God or get his attention simply by rambling or reciting endless, empty phrases.

I’m not and no one should.

 

[doctrox]

I’m not and no one should.

You have and you shouldn't (don't make me repost your voluminous pap).

 

[Matthias]

“The very fact that the Church was then seeking temporal power and dominion - and was gaining it - proves that it had allowed its own theology to be infected by non-Christian teaching.”

(Jean-Michel, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 186)

 

[Jay Ross]

Unless you are prepared to die for something that you firmly believe in, you really do not believe in it.

 

[Matthias]

Unless you are prepared to die for something that you firmly believe in, you really do not believe in it.

I‘m prepared to die for the proposition that followers of Jesus must not kill one another.

What would you say about this proposition: Unless you are prepared to kill for something that you firmly believe in, you really do not believe in it.

 

[Matthias]

Most early Christian writers, it would seem, regarded the state as necessary and even providential. They also believed that it out of necessity had to use force, even of a homicidal nature, in order to maintain itself and to have its laws respected. They then resolved their contradiction by leaving the execution of this task, which they refused to undertake, to non-Christians.”

(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, pp. 222-223)

I would place Paul and the other apostles in this group of Christian writers.

 

[Matthias]

I‘m prepared to die for the proposition that followers of Jesus must not kill one another.

What would you say about this proposition: Unless you are prepared to kill for something that you firmly believe in, you really do not believe in it.

I’m not prepared to kill a follower of Jesus, nor am I prepared to kill a non-follower of Jesus, for any reason.

“Since the believers were not ready even to defend their faith by violence, they would all the more refuse to use this means in matters of secondary importance.”

(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 216)

 

[Matthias]

“The early Christians’ conception of an all-encompassing empire also has significance for us. It reminds us that - in the present situation of a world divided into national and antagonistic sovereign states - it is impossible to appeal to the idea of maintaining an international order. The tragedy of our current situation is that millions of men of equally good faith can hurl themselves against each other, each side cherishing the conviction that it is the administrator of justice and that its opponents are brigands.”

(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 224)

He’s speaking about followers of Jesus killing followers of Jesus in the wars of the nations. He calls it a “tragedy”. Time will tell what Jesus calls it and those who do it.

The followers of Jesus can stop it. I call upon them in this thread, in the name of the Messiah, to do just that.

 

[Matthias]

“Christ’s soldiers always win their battles on their knees.” - C.H. Spurgeon