God Commands Righteous Violence

[Cahn333]

A new parable of the ten pounds

Xhrist delivered the following to four men one day: I will divide ten pounds between four people, to you two I giving three pounds and two to whom I shall give two. One week later He comes across all four. One to whom He gave three pounds states, I bought some fish and sold them, making me a profit of four pounds. The other to whom was given three pounds states that he did the same and made a profit of five pounds. One who was given two pounds apologizes and states that his family had little to eat and so he spent the money on fish and simply fed them and the other given two pounds states that he had kept the money but knowing that his brother had little money to feed his family would now help support that brother, giving the two pounds to he. Jesus states to the other two, This man is in heaven already and the poor man now has a brother that shall help him achieve the same. The two that had received three pounds then agreed to dedicate their lives to helping the poor and with this Xhrist did help four achieve Oneness

 

[NayborBear]

Where does Romans 13 say that God has put us in authority? The chapter opens:

NKJV Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

The "governing authorities" as far as the Romans were concerned were Nero and the other leaders of the Roman empire.

I would say you'd be pretty correct as far as a "monarchy" as THEE "governing authority" is concerned.
But with a pretty high degree of confidence?
"Governing Authorities" as well as "Monarchy's" ARE (how can I say) "On a RUNAWAY TRAIN headed DOWNHILL on the road to hell!"......"WITH A TAILWIND"
To which?
I believe God has more or less? DIVORCED Himself from the situation!
Although "churchianiy", along with the "pasifisistic ones'" won't believe nor accept it!
Rather puts one's like YOURSELF in the SAME boat as the Priests and High Priests and scribes and pharasees were hundreds to a thousand years BEFORE the Sending of Christ to be born from a virgin!

THEY? As well as ones' like yourself?
Just "takin' a cruise on the love boat" on some river in Egypt!
Waitin' on God to DO "something!"

 

[doctrox]

.

Besides, what has [NKJV attribution] got to do with what we were discussing, which was whether the verse taught violence for Christians?

It has everything "to do with" it.

To illustrate,

Where does Romans 13 say that God has put us in authority? The chapter opens:

NKJV Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

The "governing authorities" as far as the Romans were concerned were Nero and the other leaders of the Roman empire.

This was explained to you a few weeks ago (and remains unrebutted), but you're still quoting from a copyrighted invention and, as a result, remain in a state of confusion.

You've been hoodwinked because you're trusting in a book that is not the Holy Bible. Rather, you're trusting in a copyrighted invention of men who require compen$ation/attribution if you cite their work.

It is noteworthy that modern copyrighted “versions” of the Holy Bible, such as your NKJV, have changed the phrase “higher powers” to merely “governing authorities,” thereby obscuring the necessary distinction between Godly authority and ungodly authority, between God’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom.

Modern "versions" of the Holy Bible are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)

Conversely, the King James Bible is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author.

The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NKJV© is.

Sorry, I usually put "NKJV" before my quotes from the Bible. I forgot to do so this time. As to the matter of whether the verse says that it was for that sake of the father or the sake of the fathers, thew ASV, BBE, CEV, ESV, ISV, KJV, LSB, MKJV, NET, WEB, and YLT all have it in the plural.

You are required by copyright law (and Forum Terms & Rules) to cite your sources:

"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by Christianity Board, or you have the expressed written permission of the author. Otherwise, please properly cite all articles.
Respect copyrights. If you draw from others’ work, please cite your sources (reasonably) and provide proper credit."
- source: Forum Terms & Rules

Conversely, with the uncopyrighted Holy Bible (AV, KJB), you are not required to cite your source, as the truth cannot be copyrighted; no one can claim ownership of a testimony.

nowhere in the Bible do we read of Christians retaliating with violence when they themselves are persecuted.

Again, you're sabotaging your own cause by presuming a "Christian" is one who would "retaliate" against anything.

But I can see where you're coming from.

Yet in His laying down His life, He dispolayed not a shred of violence:

Yep.

Again, I would say that I have been talking about Christians and their reaction towards people who persecute them for being Christians, not policemen or members of the armed forces using lawful force.

You've mixed up the gist. Either we talk about self defense (not incendiary "retaliatory violence"), or we talk about how one is to handle the persecution that accompanies the life of a believer.

Jesus never taught His followers to retaliate with violence.

Correct.
.

 

[PeterAndroz]

But I can be angry with somebody without being violent. When my son was growing up, I was sometimes angry with him, but not violent, for example. I have said before that this thread didn't begin by being about situations like a criminal coming into your home to murder, but about Christians being persecuted because the are Christians, and the question of whether we are taught in Scripture that we should retaliate with violence against our persecutors.

You can't quote the saving Gospel for today WOW
You don't understand ANGRY in Matt 5:22 WOW

 

[doctrox]

this thread didn't begin by being about situations like a criminal coming into your home to murder, but about Christians being persecuted because the are Christians, and the question of whether we are taught in Scripture that we should retaliate with violence against our persecutors.

David is trying to get clarity on the "persecution" aspect of the Christian walk.

Meanwhile, we have only to consult the Holy Bible to determine a Lawful course of action re: a murderous home invasion.

If someone is killed as a result of acting in self-defense, then there is no blood on one's hands. I'll show you one example:

There is a specific distinction between killing in self-defense during a break-in versus retaliatory killing.

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double." (Exodus 22:2-4).

Nighttime: If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is killed, the homeowner is generally free of "bloodguilt" (murder), as it is difficult to identify the threat in the dark.

Daytime: If the same event happens after sunrise, the homeowner is guilty of bloodguilt if they kill the thief, because it is assumed they could see the thief and should instead pursue restitution or legal justice.

...you'll simply turn the other cheek...

A slap to the cheek is an insult - not intended as a threat to life. Turning the other cheek = choosing to not retaliate but to give the provocateur another opportunity to rather do the right thing.

 

[David Lamb]

I would say you'd be pretty correct as far as a "monarchy" as THEE "governing authority" is concerned.
But with a pretty high degree of confidence?
"Governing Authorities" as well as "Monarchy's" ARE (how can I say) "On a RUNAWAY TRAIN headed DOWNHILL on the road to hell!"......"WITH A TAILWIND"
To which?
I believe God has more or less? DIVORCED Himself from the situation!
Although "churchianiy", along with the "pasifisistic ones'" won't believe nor accept it!
Rather puts one's like YOURSELF in the SAME boat as the Priests and High Priests and scribes and pharasees were hundreds to a thousand years BEFORE the Sending of Christ to be born from a virgin!

THEY? As well as ones' like yourself?
Just "takin' a cruise on the love boat" on some river in Egypt!
Waitin' on God to DO "something!"

Sorry, but I don't see how that answers what I asked, about where Romans 13 makes us the governing authority.

I have no idea what " "takin' a cruise on the love boat" on some river in Egypt!" means.

 

[David Lamb]

.


It has everything "to do with" it.

To illustrate,

This was explained to you a few weeks ago (and remains unrebutted), but you're still quoting from a copyrighted invention and, as a result, remain in a state of confusion.

You've been hoodwinked because you're trusting in a book that is not the Holy Bible. Rather, you're trusting in a copyrighted invention of men who require compen$ation/attribution if you cite their work.

It is noteworthy that modern copyrighted “versions” of the Holy Bible, such as your NKJV, have changed the phrase “higher powers” to merely “governing authorities,” thereby obscuring the necessary distinction between Godly authority and ungodly authority, between God’s kingdom and Satan’s kingdom.

Modern "versions" of the Holy Bible are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)

Conversely, the King James Bible is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author.

The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NKJV© is.


You are required by copyright law (and Forum Terms & Rules) to cite your sources:

"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by Christianity Board, or you have the expressed written permission of the author. Otherwise, please properly cite all articles.
Respect copyrights. If you draw from others’ work, please cite your sources (reasonably) and provide proper credit."
- source: Forum Terms & Rules

Conversely, with the uncopyrighted Holy Bible (AV, KJB), you are not required to cite your source, as the truth cannot be copyrighted; no one can claim ownership of a testimony.


Again, you're sabotaging your own cause by presuming a "Christian" is one who would "retaliate" against anything.

But I can see where you're coming from.


Yep.


You've mixed up the gist. Either we talk about self defense (not incendiary "retaliatory violence"), or we talk about how one is to handle the persecution that accompanies the life of a believer.


Correct.
.

Why all this talk about copyright? I said in the post to which you are replying that all the English translations I have available (including the KJV - which is under "crown copyright" anyway here in the UK) have the word "fathers" or "fathers'" as plural. The KJV says:

KJV Rom 11:28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers' sakes.

Anyway, copyright law does not prohibit the quoting of short passages, such as a Bible verse or two, from a copyrighted work.

 

[Cahn333]

Romans 13 is not the gospels and can lead into catastrophe if we simply reflect on historical and present day "authorities" in governance. If the law is wrong, if circumstance is so, then we are duty bound to work to it's overcoming. The only law is the law God has placed as our heart and which entails ones stance to the world. Xx

 

[David Lamb]

You can't quote the saving Gospel for today WOW
You don't understand ANGRY in Matt 5:22 WOW

View attachment 89687
View attachment 89686

How do you get from my post that I cannot quote the saving gospel, or that I don't understand "angry" in Matthew 5:22? My point was that anger does not necessarily involve violence. Your quoted definition of orgizomenos says nothing about violence.

 

[quietthinker]

No, I'm a member of a faith that believes in idly watching as hordes of Satanists rape, enslave and kill our people in the name of piety.

I guess those who idly watch anything are in essence hanging out for their allotted three score and ten to expire.