Yes.
Jesus, Paul, the other apostles, and the early Christians wouldn’t have agreed with that.
I’m a 1st century Christian living in the 21st century. I don’t agree with it.
Biblical justification for harming or killing followers of Jesus
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes.
Jesus, Paul, the other apostles, and the early Christians wouldn’t have agreed with that.
I’m a 1st century Christian living in the 21st century. I don’t agree with it.
RIght - he told them to carry swords for a closer shaving experience.
If you had read the passage in context, you would have discerned that the time for Jesus' arrest was nigh. IOW, it was not a time to defend.
No, Jesus was not "condemning weaponry." Do you not know what it means to "bear the sword'? "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain" (Romans 13). Also, if a sword is your tool for settling disputes, then you will also die by a sword.
Ahhh, the vast spiritual wasteland of A.I. raises its ugly head.
Last edited:
The New Testament -> for Jesus, Paul, the apostles, and the followers of Jesus in the 1st century.
The Ante Nicene Church Fathers -> for the followers of Jesus in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
There is no separation between the church and the pagan Roman Empire?
You're bouncing around here.
Getting back on track:
Many followers of Jesus Christ have been deceived into believing that a separation between church and state exists within God's kingdom, thereby justifying such ungodly worldly behaviors as voting and allowing unbelievers to rule over them.
Whereas, God has said:
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
I just asked a question. The impression that I have at the moment is that you approve of the followers of Jesus killing one another under some conditions / circumstances.
The government ruling over them was unbelieving.
I explained why Jesus said 2 swords were enough, so He would be reckoned among the transgressors.
Jesus condemned physical weapons quite firmly.
Go ahead and quote the verses stating that the disciples were armed and used swords to defend themselves.
Search the gospels and the book of Acts carefully.
That's because you have biased your initial query.
Just like in Samuel's time, when they rejected the rule of God, to today! Now we're getting closer to the reason why the majority find themselves in a hurt locker; they smell a rat, but they don't know the diabolical details - the tragic result of trying to serve two masters.
That opinion is without scriptural support. Regardless, you need to clearly state what your thesis is, even as Matthias has been jumping around.
That's not the gist.
If we take the OP at face value and ignore Matthias' subsequent questions...
...then we can easily reason that one out.
Last edited:
The compromise of serving two masters (e.g. the synthesis of church and state) results in, among other things, the belief that it's acceptable to kill others - believers or unbelievers. The false dichotomy is similar to the two cites posted here, where one is based in faith and the other is based in man -->
Witness the attempts to pigeonhole the question, to force an answer from among believers, while avoiding the whole truth of the matter.
But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
Witness the attempts to pigeonhole the question, to force an answer from among believers, while avoiding the whole truth of the matter.
But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people. And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also; Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus. And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.
Is there any scenario where you approve of the followers of Jesus killing one another?
Self-defense; protecting yourself and the innocent is permissible - followers of Jesus or not.
Followers of Jesus are not to use violence for propagating the gospel, for personal revenge or out of hatred, but they do clearly have the right to use arms or whatever in defense of themselves, their family, and the community of faith when under attack.
Last edited:
I asked earlier for examples of Jesus and the apostles doing so.
So then you do approve of the followers of Jesus killing one another under certain conditions. Why didn’t you just say so?
I "approve of" self-defense. The believer's temple houses the Holy Spirit and his body is not his own.
You wandered from your own OP. Only a worthy question is deserving of a worthy answer.
So do I, but only in the way which Jesus and the apostles did. (They didn’t do it with swords.)
Okay.
Wowzer!
“No longer do we take the sword against any nation, nor do we learn war anymore, since we have become sons of peace through Jesus who is our author instead of following the traditional customs, by which we were ‘strangers to the covenants.’”
(Origen, Contra Celsum, V, 33. Cited by Dr. Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 87)
Bold is mine.
Compare and contrast that with: “You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”
(Origen, Contra Celsum, V, 33. Cited by Dr. Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 87)
Bold is mine.
Compare and contrast that with: “You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”
Similar threads
