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!
“Christian preaching was reaching even those who lived outside the confines of the Roman Empire. In fact, one of the reasons why the Christians refused to fight was that they might kill a brother in the faith among the barbarians whom the Romans were fighting.”
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 112)
That’s conscientious objection.
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 112)
That’s conscientious objection.
I read about it last night. Dr. Hornus discussed it in It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight.
An excerpt -
“The text in question the Passion of the Martyrs of Agaunum - relates the story of the martyrdom of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion. The events it chronicles purport to go back to the persecution of Diocletian. But the text which we possess was written only in the fifth century by Bishop St. Eucher of Lyon, on the basis of relics which Bishop Theodore discovered at the end of the fourth century. Monceaux himself was forced to admit, ‘In this account, which is swarming with errors, reality has been smothered by legend.’ D. van Berchem, in his fine study of the subject, has been even more severe, and his conclusions have been widely accepted.”
(pp. 154-155)
The only reason I’m mentioning it this morning is because of just how seriously Dr. Hornus himself took an attempted refutation of van Berchem by Dupraz - which I don’t recall having read. That got my attention.
“Since the publication of the first edition of the present book, however, L. Dupraz has devoted a large volume to a refutation of van Berchem. According to Dupraz, the collective martyrdom actually took place - at the end of 285 or the beginning of 286. If this thesis were right, it would mean that in the second half of the third century there were already Christians in the Roman army - in great numbers and in fact comprising fighting units. This would obviously contradict my entire interpretation of the early Church’s attitude toward military service. And, of all the objections to my arguments which have been advanced to date, it would be the only one which I would consider to be of genuine importance. I have elsewhere explained in detail why I have concluded that Dupraz’s thesis - despite its genuine scholarly value - cannot be maintained or even seriously considered. I therefore continue to believe that the only (although real) interest of the text consists in its revelation of ‘the sentiments … of a Roman Christian of the fifth century.’”
(p. 155)
Bold is mine.
I was looking for more recent discussion of the legend of the Theban Legion this morning and came across a paper written by Dr. David Woods in 1994. I‘ve skimmed it but haven’t had time to read the entire paper yet.
The paper concludes with this summary -
“To summarize, there is little doubt but that the story of the martyrdom of Maurice and the Theban Legion which Eucherius’ letter has preserved is a complete fiction. Van Brechem tried to explain this fiction in terms of the translation from the East of the relics of the military martyr Maurice of Apamea. It is possible, however, to advance another hypothesis. It has been suggested that the legend was in fact a carefully constructed political statement which must be interpreted in the light of the political struggles which occurred during during the life of its assumed original author, Theodore of Octodurum. In brief, it was an incitement to rebellion against the usurper Eugenius which was aimed immediately at the Thebaei, but was also relevant to a wider audience. Such a hypothesis cannot be definitively proved, but it is based on evidence as valid as that used in the earlier hypothesis, and it therefore deserves equal attention.”
(David Woods, “The Origin of the Legend of Maurice and the Theban Legion”)
The paper concludes with this summary -
“To summarize, there is little doubt but that the story of the martyrdom of Maurice and the Theban Legion which Eucherius’ letter has preserved is a complete fiction. Van Brechem tried to explain this fiction in terms of the translation from the East of the relics of the military martyr Maurice of Apamea. It is possible, however, to advance another hypothesis. It has been suggested that the legend was in fact a carefully constructed political statement which must be interpreted in the light of the political struggles which occurred during during the life of its assumed original author, Theodore of Octodurum. In brief, it was an incitement to rebellion against the usurper Eugenius which was aimed immediately at the Thebaei, but was also relevant to a wider audience. Such a hypothesis cannot be definitively proved, but it is based on evidence as valid as that used in the earlier hypothesis, and it therefore deserves equal attention.”
(David Woods, “The Origin of the Legend of Maurice and the Theban Legion”)
Chapter 4 of Dr. Hornus’ book is titled “Christian Soldiers and Soldier Saints”. He begins the chapter with this comment -
”Nobody would contest the fact that there were Christians in the Roman army. But it is important first of all to determine the dates at which the earliest documents referring to Christian soldiers appeared. Having done this, we must then ascertain what the state of mind of these soldiers actually was.”
(p. 118)
Near the end of the chapter, he cautions his readers -
”Once again, a methodological caveat: it is irresponsible to generalize about ’the Church’s attitude’ on the basis of indications that there were some Christians in the army, and then to dismiss the teachings of the Fathers on the subject as symptoms of personal perversity or sectarian deviation.”
(p. 154)
”Nobody would contest the fact that there were Christians in the Roman army. But it is important first of all to determine the dates at which the earliest documents referring to Christian soldiers appeared. Having done this, we must then ascertain what the state of mind of these soldiers actually was.”
(p. 118)
Near the end of the chapter, he cautions his readers -
”Once again, a methodological caveat: it is irresponsible to generalize about ’the Church’s attitude’ on the basis of indications that there were some Christians in the army, and then to dismiss the teachings of the Fathers on the subject as symptoms of personal perversity or sectarian deviation.”
(p. 154)
“You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”
“The hand that has held the Eucharist must not be sullied by the blood-stained sword.”
(Cyprian, On the Advantage of Patience, 14)
“The hand that has held the Eucharist must not be sullied by the blood-stained sword.”
(Cyprian, On the Advantage of Patience, 14)
“You are not following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.”
“As for Origen, he - when responding to the pagan Celsus’ accusation that the Christians were bad citizens because rejected military service (‘If everyone were to do the same as you, the … earthly things would come into the power of the most lawless and savage barbarians’) - strikingly made no attempt to deny the fact of their refusal. ‘We defend the empire better in another way,’ he stated, conceding by implication that the Christians did not defend it by arms. Thus, at the end of the second century, a pagan who had made a thorough investigation of Christianity had found only Christians who refused military service.”
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, pp. 160-161)
“As for Origen, he - when responding to the pagan Celsus’ accusation that the Christians were bad citizens because rejected military service (‘If everyone were to do the same as you, the … earthly things would come into the power of the most lawless and savage barbarians’) - strikingly made no attempt to deny the fact of their refusal. ‘We defend the empire better in another way,’ he stated, conceding by implication that the Christians did not defend it by arms. Thus, at the end of the second century, a pagan who had made a thorough investigation of Christianity had found only Christians who refused military service.”
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, pp. 160-161)
“There is, moreover, one text - the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus - which proves that the Church expressed itself officially on this subject, and that it clearly condemned in the army the homicidal violence which is its fundamental character.”
(Jean-Michel, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 161)
(Jean-Michel, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 161)
“This is the slippery slope of compromise. The canons of Arles, like the ecclesiastical legislation which had preceded them, demonstrate that when Church discipline manifests tolerance, human weakness will exploit it to the utmost. Of course, Christians were not supposed to be soldiers at all; nevertheless, in certain precisely defined circumstances, it was possible to tolerate this as a lesser evil. After all, as long as it was solely a matter of parades, things were not very serious. But alas, these events indicate that those who consent only to militare soon find themselves being drawn to bellare. Once a little finger has been caught in a cogwheel, it is not long before the whole body is enmeshed in the works.”
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 176)
This is why knowing and understanding Church history is so important.
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 176)
This is why knowing and understanding Church history is so important.
Back to the legend of the Theban Legion -
“The best example of the Church’s impossible attempt to maintain a ‘balanced’ position which distinguished between two types of homicidal violence is provided by the legend of the Theban Legion. According to this legend, Christians, who were forbidden to engage in violence against the emperor, were permitted to commit acts of violence in his behalf and were even praised for doing so. When one recalls that many people viewed the empire as the universal framework of order and peace, this position is understandable. But its balance remained precarious; in fact, it could not be maintained For long. For history tells us that, once Christians generally admitted that they were justified in taking up arms to defend certain values, bloody religious conflicts broke out everywhere - between believers and nonbelievers, and even within Christendom itself.”
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 177)
This, it appears, is where we can trace the origin of justification for Christians killing fellow Christians. This comes from the compromising church - not from the New Testament, not from Jesus, not from the apostles.
***
“The year 314 represents a compromise, a bargain which the Church struck with the emperor in exchange for his protection.”
(Ibid.)
I’m reminded now of Israel making alliances with various nations for protection.
“The best example of the Church’s impossible attempt to maintain a ‘balanced’ position which distinguished between two types of homicidal violence is provided by the legend of the Theban Legion. According to this legend, Christians, who were forbidden to engage in violence against the emperor, were permitted to commit acts of violence in his behalf and were even praised for doing so. When one recalls that many people viewed the empire as the universal framework of order and peace, this position is understandable. But its balance remained precarious; in fact, it could not be maintained For long. For history tells us that, once Christians generally admitted that they were justified in taking up arms to defend certain values, bloody religious conflicts broke out everywhere - between believers and nonbelievers, and even within Christendom itself.”
(Jean-Michel Hornus, It Is Not Lawful For Me To Fight, p. 177)
This, it appears, is where we can trace the origin of justification for Christians killing fellow Christians. This comes from the compromising church - not from the New Testament, not from Jesus, not from the apostles.
***
“The year 314 represents a compromise, a bargain which the Church struck with the emperor in exchange for his protection.”
(Ibid.)
I’m reminded now of Israel making alliances with various nations for protection.
and
...are a mix of historical fact and religious tradition - of history and myth.
Origen was a heretic.
And you've salted your strawman into various threads e.g.:
In Mark 7 of the King James Version (KJV), Jesus sternly rebukes the religious leaders for allowing their man-made rules and traditions to override the literal commandments of God, thereby making God's Word "of none effect."
Please quote the scriptures where Jesus said you can kill in self defense or to protect others.
Quote verses in Acts where believers used swords for self defense or to protect others.
Do you know why I wrote about it?
His teaching on the subject at hand is consistent with the teaching of the church at that time.
It isn’t a straw man. It’s a doctrine of demons that is being taught on this forum. I’m teaching against it, using the writings of the Early Church Fathers.
That’s right.
Your statement is a presumption. Rather, 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 legal and moral 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.
Jesus never prohibited the possession of swords. Do the math.
...and your continual reposting of that inflammatory sentence is nothing more than gaslighting. It really hurts your cause célèbre.
Like Origen Adamantius, the "Early Church Fathers" are without preeminence.
Last edited:
The point of appealing to church history is:
1. It stands opposed to the demonic doctrine, “You aren’t following Jesus if you aren’t armed, ready to kill.
2. It demonstrates that the Christian teaching about war, violence, and the state shifted in the 4th century away from the teaching of Jesus, the apostles, and the earlier Christians on those matters.
Followers of Jesus killing one another - the subject of this thread - is pleasing to the devil, not to God and his Son, the Messiah.
That is deflecting from what I said, which was:
“Please quote the scriptures where Jesus said you can kill in self defense or to protect others.
Quote verses in Acts where believers used swords for self defense or to protect others.”
I already showed you with scripture where one can "kill in self defense or to protect others."
You're attempting to pigeonhole again.
Propaganda Techniques
#9 Non sequitur: A type of logical fallacy, in which a conclusion is made out of an argument that does not justify it. All invalid arguments can be considered as special cases of non sequitur.
Jesus actively instructs his disciples to arm themselves for protection as they face a hostile world, telling them, 'If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one'. (Luke 22:35-38)
The Apostle Paul establishes that godly authorities are to maintain justice and bear the sword to execute punishment on wrongdoers. Police and military use force used to protect citizens. (Romans 13:3-4)
Paul states that anyone who does not provide for their relatives, which includes protecting them from harm, "hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel" [unbeliever]. (1 Timothy 5:8)
Last edited:
You did not quote Jesus, you quoted the Old Testament.
Wrong. You are adding your own ideas to scripture.
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.
Similar threads
