I'm Pretty Sure That Jesus Wasn't Talking About This

[Amazed@grace]

I, of course, am rejecting this false accusation--anyone can read my responses and see I've neither "changed Scripture to my liking" nor failed to "actually address Scripture". Maybe the fact that you feel so free to accuse me of these things is proof you haven't read as carefully as I've responded.

No, that's not it.
You claimed Paul was stoned to death and was resurrected.
That is not true according to scriptures actual reporting.

You claim all the apostles but for John were martyred. However, that is not scripture.

The only apostle who was recorded in scripture having been martyred is James, in Acts 12.

 

[Amazed@grace]

Some say that Peter was aiming for the guy’s neck , but because he was so inexperienced at sword battling, he accidentally cut off the man’s ear.......he missed his intended target....

I think what matters is what the bible says.

Though if we're spitballing theories here, if he was aiming to decapitate the guard he would have used a horizontal stroke that would have at the end of the forward swing arched upward at a slight downward angle at the point of contact.
Slicing the whole ear off requires a different grip and swing arch.

Continuing to spitball.
When the temple guard saw this happen, their commrades ear being cut off by a sword stroke, and then witnessed this man they were to arrest pick the ear up and restore it to the side of their commrades head, what do you think would have been their reaction?
They, knowing the damage a sword can do, just witnessed that miracle right before their eyes.
This man they were to arrest on the charge of blasphemy just restored an ear to the head of a fellow guard.
Proving, Jesus is no fraud.

 

[GracePeace]

No, that's not it.
You claimed Paul was stoned to death and was resurrected.
That is not true according to scriptures actual reporting.

Answered all the way back in Page 7:

What was the point? He offered no violent resistance. Even if you reject what is obvious reality that he died and afterward was resurrected through prayer, it means nothing--that wasn't my point. As you see, no violence occurred to protect him nor as a reprisal.

You claim all the apostles but for John were martyred. However, that is not scripture.

The only apostle who was recorded in scripture having been martyred is James, in Acts 12.

I don't think I ever said "Scripture states", I was referring to tradition.
James was martyred, yes--and John's Gospel alludes to Peter's martyrdom.
We also have the martyrdom of John the Baptist, Stephen, Paul's victims, Antipas Revelation 2:13.
For all that, the Scripture describes Christians as being "sheep led to the slaughter".
Sheep aren't violent.
No "violence" commands are given anywhere in the NT.
Violence is not practiced by our Examples either.
Those go together--they taught what they practiced.
No practice of violence = no teaching of violence.

 

[GracePeace]

@Amazed@grace
Again, essentially nothing new is being said. I don't like repeating myself.
Unless you have something new to say, I don't need to reply.

 

[Brakelite]

But, we were always the 'good guys'. Didn't anyone ever watch the movies or read the history books carefully emphasizing all of our good points and our good causes?

I knew there was a good substantive reason I liked you.
An honest man with an unbiased view of reality.
And yet despite all the flaws and all the wickedness that emanated from within this "experiment", God used it for His purposes. Bringing His people from a continent of darkness and persecution, Has have them a nation in which the protestant ethic of a religion without a Pope and a state without a king, and give an environment in which religious liberty could flourish. Took a while to learn though... The Puritans wanted a theocracy with them in charge. Death was the result if you refused to attend church more than twice in a row. Rhode island was the first genuine place where religious liberty could be found... But even there it was only tolerated rather than truly free.

Vietnam has for a long time been an itch on my back needing a scratch from time to time. To young to serve, but not too young to question. I always had misgivings about that war, despite the hype and the proximity to my home in NZ, and the active deployment of Australian and new Zealand forces there, there was ever something about that war that I couldn't nail down. Those misgivings grew after it finished when several books were written revealing the cruelty and the devastating weaponry being used for the first time in war. Napalm... Agent orange... The indifference to "collateral damage"... Meaning civilians.
What I learned 20 years later that even to this day isn't generally publicized was there involvement of the Vatican in promoting the war and the events that led to it, including the assassination of president Kennedy who was reluctant to get involved beyond sending observers. Frequent visits to the white house from then Cardinal Spellman couldn't convince Kennedy either. Then he was killed. Then the war began in earnest. And thousands of American, Australian and Kiwi troops died and suffered horrendous injuries and are still suffering from them with little or no thanks from anyone. The war was lost. South Vietnam was in the hands of communists. The Catholic ruling family of south Vietnam was gone. And all those who opposed the war were designated hippies and drug addicts... They certainly weren't 'Patriots'.
Dominionism today has overrun the protestant churches in America. I see America as the second beast of Revelation 13 now forming. Had the appearance of a lamb... Professed Christ like character and practise... But in reality spoke as the dragon, and supported the dragons agenda, particularly today in her promotion of globalist one world government and religion under the banner of the Vatican.
Ironically... Or supernaturally... Without the US where would Protestantism have turned to for help? Quite possibly without a wilderness to run to, Protestantism may have been overrun by the counter reformation and died not long after it started.
KJV Revelation 12:13-17
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

one that considers God as it's guide..

The name"God" is certainly interwoven throughout American society. But I suggest it is no more genuinely a part of the personal lives of Americans today than He was for those in Israel during the reign of Ahab.
There are today numerous competing gods vying for attention, and from what I observe the true God is becoming lost in the milieu of modern political upheaval and drama. The church seems to believe that politics is the answer to American ills. That God's "leading" as you put it is no longer the gospel of the scriptures, but through power politics and lobbying for political favor. I see the current religious fervor in America behind Trump resulting in only one thing.

KJV Revelation 13:11-17
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

 

[quietthinker]

What we wish upon those who oppose us defines the spirit by which we operate.

 

[Amazed@grace]

Answered all the way back in Page 7:

Yes, you attempted to make the scripture from

I don't think I ever said "Scripture states", I was referring to tradition.
James was martyred, yes--and John's Gospel alludes to Peter's martyrdom.

In I believe post #168 you interspersed bible reference to Jesus and then referred to the martyrdom of the apostles.

We also have the martyrdom of John the Baptist, Stephen, Paul's victims, Antipas Revelation 2:13.

Not apostles. Stephen was a deacon.

For all that, the Scripture describes Christians as being "sheep led to the slaughter".
Sheep aren't violent.

You may wish to do some research on that.
Sheep can be violent. Therefore they are violent.

No "violence" commands are given anywhere in the NT.
Violence is not practiced by our Examples either.
Those go together--they taught what they practiced.
No practice of violence = no teaching of violence.

Not anywhere? Luke 12:45-47.
Paul and the rod threat in 1 Corinthians 4:21 and Galatians 5.
Revelation 19:17-21, birds gorging on human flesh.
The judgement in 2 Thessalonians 1.
Luke 19, where Jesus commands his enemies be brought before him and slaughtered in his presence.

Violence examples are present in Peter's act in the garden, and he was armed because Jesus ordered it. And Jesus was violent against the moneychangers.
Ergo, violence examples are in the NT.
And when Jesus commanded the Apostles buy a weapon, swords, it wasn't so they could pin notes to the upper chamber walls.

 

[Brakelite]

Readers of the Bible.
The apostle brothers, James and John, were called , Sons of Thunder, by Jesus.

It wasn't a compliment."shall we call upon God to rain fire down and destroy them"?.
Said Jesus, "you do not know of what spirit you are".

 

[Brakelite]

Scripture please....especially on the words explicitly forbade. LOL

KJV Matthew 26:52-53
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

 

[Amazed@grace]

@Amazed@grace
Again, essentially nothing new is being said. I don't like repeating myself.
Unless you have something new to say, I don't need to reply.

You just did.
There's plenty of new material in my post.
And it refutes your claim that no "violence" commands are given anywhere in the NT.

We can stop here.

 

[GracePeace]

You may wish to do some research on that.
Sheep can be violent. Therefore they are violent.

I've personally slaughtered a sheep and I can say you don't know what you're talking about.
The sheep is docile. You and two others hold it down, and you chop its head off, and it's done.

Try to go slaughter a lion like that. Please record it.

Again, you have to add to Scripture to claim they promoted violent defense or retribution or anything like that in this age.

Not anywhere? Luke 12:45-47.
Paul and the rod threat in 1 Corinthians 4:21 and Galatians 5.
Revelation 19:17-21, birds gorging on human flesh.
The judgement in 2 Thessalonians 1.
Luke 19, where Jesus commands his enemies be brought before him and slaughtered in his presence.

1. Luke 12:45-47, Luke 19, 2 Thessalonians 1, Revelation 19:17-21 : these are all about what Jesus is going to do when Jesus comes back to judge, not about how we're expected to comport ourselves in this age, which is always non-violent according to all of the proofs I've already furnished both from Scripture and tradition.
2. 1 Corinthians 4 : a) Read Chapter 4. They were boasting of themselves and putting Paul down. Paul doesn't want to be harsh with them, but he's saying they're asking for it--but he's not talking about attacking them physically. This "rod" is the Biblical "rod of his mouth" Isaiah 11:4. Remember he's referring to how he will speak with them.
b) YES, Paul even hands a sinning brother over to satan for the destruction of his flesh so that if possible he might be saved in 1 Corinthians 5. Believers have been given illnesses and even put to death by God for eating "The Lord's Supper" "unworthily" 1 Corinthians 11.
None of this is talking about "self-defense" as it was being spoken of in the context of this discussion.

 

[Amazed@grace]

I've personally slaughtered a sheep and I can say you don't know what you're talking about.
The sheep is docile. You and two others hold it down, and you chop its head off, and it's done.

Try to go slaughter a lion like that. Please record it.

Again, you have to add to Scripture to claim they promoted violent defense or retribution or anything like that in this age.


1. Luke 12:45-47, Luke 19, Revelation 19:17-21, 2 Thessalonians 1 : these are all about what Jesus is going to do when Jesus comes back to judge, not about how we're expected to comport ourselves in this age which was always non-violent according to all of the proofs I've already furnished both from Scripture and tradition.
2. 1 Corinthians 4 : YES, Paul even hands a sinning brother over to satan for the destruction of his flesh so that if possible he might be saved in 1 Corinthians 5. Believers have been given illnesses and even put to death by God for eating Communion unworthily 1 Corinthians 11.
That's a different story--that's not talking about "self-defense" as it was being spoken of in the context of this discussion.

With regard to sheep, my family fhas raised Angus cattle, horses, Egyptian pigmy goats, chickens for a retail chicken meat retailer, albino rabbits, and sheep.

Further, you dodge when your proclamations regarding scripture are proven in error.
You stated this, a copy and paste of your words in this discussion: no "violence" commands are given anywhere in the NT.

You were wrong.
Just as you are thinking I don't know what I'm talking about when I know sheep can be, and therefore are violent.
When you don't know that, I am not the one who doesn't know what she's talking about. You are.
You think sheep aren't violent because you allegedly cut their head off?
You also don't know anything about home slaughter of sheep.

You aren't intellectually honest in your postings here. I have no respect nor time for that.

 

[GracePeace]

With regard to sheep, my family fhas raised Angus cattle, horses, Egyptian pigmy goats, chickens for a retail chicken meat retailer, albino rabbits, and sheep.

Good, then you agree with me slaughtering a sheep is nothing like slaughtering a lion.

Further, you dodge when your proclamations regarding scripture are proven in error.

Nope, the ones that were already addressed I didn't answer--I only answered the new ones.

You stated this, a copy and paste of your words in this discussion: no "violence" commands are given anywhere in the NT.

Yes, no violence (as in "self-defense"--the topic of the thread) commands are given--I stand by that.

You were wrong.

Not even close.

Just as you are thinking I don't know what I'm talking about when I know sheep can be, and therefore are violent

I was right--sheep are docile when slaughtered, animals like lions are not.
Please post the video of you slaughtering a lion by hand soon.

You aren't intellectually honest in your postings here. I have no respect nor time for that.

You have nothing to say because all the Scriptures militate against your views--unfortunately for you, you're not interested in conforming to Scripture just revealing thoughts you came up with in your own mind and trying to foist them on Scripture.

 

[Grailhunter]

KJV Matthew 26:52-53
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

So forbade has a specific meaning....what was occurring was rather dynamic. I have already responded to the perish by the sword thing. If the most important thing to them was not dying...they did not need to be involved with what was going on in the Gospels.
Live by the sword and die by the sword and ride a horse and smell like a horse are statements of facts, not a definitive statement of whether you should or not.

The pacifism of early Christianity brings up a lot of questions.

 

[Brakelite]

The pacifism of early Christianity brings up a lot of questions.

I think the violence and non pacifism of medieval Christianity raises more, and sadly has a great deal more impact on modem day Christians who misrepresent the character of God.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yes my friend . Jesus sure did mean this . Let us take Him at his every word . Loving , embracing all things He did teach .
Some tormentors have been won to Christ , by those who did not resist the evil . But rather they prayed for them .
We ought to think again of what we truly do deserve , and yet For our sakes , JESUS took on the punishments
and even upon the cross some of His last words were Father forgive them .
Notice too that stephen did not pick up rocks to throw back at them . He even prayed and said , LORD do not hold this to their charge .
Another wonderful example of the love of God is when paul and another were in prison .
And a great earthquake stuck . The guard was ready to kill himself . THEY COULD HAVE WAITED FOR HIM TO DO SO
and walked right out . BUT THEIR HEART was TO HIS GOOD . THEY STOPPED HIM , and that man CAME TO JESUS .
YES INDEED . Let us learn every thing JESUS taught and by the HOLY GHOST KEEP IT ON OUR hearts and minds .

That’s the kind of love and courage we need to cry out for or we will help nothing.

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Yes my friend . Jesus sure did mean this . Let us take Him at his every word . Loving , embracing all things He did teach .
Some tormentors have been won to Christ , by those who did not resist the evil . But rather they prayed for them .
We ought to think again of what we truly do deserve , and yet For our sakes , JESUS took on the punishments
and even upon the cross some of His last words were Father forgive them .
Notice too that stephen did not pick up rocks to throw back at them . He even prayed and said , LORD do not hold this to their charge .
Another wonderful example of the love of God is when paul and another were in prison .
And a great earthquake stuck . The guard was ready to kill himself . THEY COULD HAVE WAITED FOR HIM TO DO SO
and walked right out . BUT THEIR HEART was TO HIS GOOD . THEY STOPPED HIM , and that man CAME TO JESUS .
YES INDEED . Let us learn every thing JESUS taught and by the HOLY GHOST KEEP IT ON OUR hearts and minds .

Sometimes I think we are waiting for some massive deception to come when it is already here...

 

[Grailhunter]

I think the violence and non pacifism of medieval Christianity raises more, and Sally has a great deal more impact on modem day Christians who misrepresent the character of God.

Sally?
As far as the character of God, I think the Bible does a good job of defining that. Some cherry pick the good and some cherry pick the bad...You can not paint God what you want Him to be.
But pacifism....
Still the question is why? Why pacifism? The whole Old and New Testament was in a very volatile era.
Rome was about to snuff Christianity out.
Christ moved to bring Rome and the Christians together.
Was that a bad thing? Protestants are not going to believe that it was Christ that did that or believe it was a bad thing.
Pacifism, what was the plan? The Roman persecutions lasted 275 years...horrid period...generations of Christians lived under the threat of horror. Was it a punishment? No prophecies described that type of persecutions.
Was the plan to kill all the Christians and then with no Christians on earth, God could wipe everyone out and that would be the "end of time?" The concept of non-resistance...martyrdom...except what you get as the will of God. Is that possible? I don't think so.
Sure the Catholic Church was anything but pacifistic. We could spend weeks talking about the corruption and atrocities of the Catholic Church.
But then we are back to, if it was not an initiative of God to merge with the Romans...what was the alternative? The Romans would have wiped out the Christians, they had turned killing Christians into a sport.
And it is not like the Protestant came in and saved the day. They were anything but peaceful and they fractured the church into thousands of denominations.
Of course some subscribe to the "Church of ones" but this has little impact on the world and again you are back to millions of different beliefs that can lead others astray.
It does not matter if it was the ancient world or modern day, Pacifists cannot survive on their own. The have to live in a country that is willing to defend itself. If a country does not defend itself, it will be conquered by evil. The pacifists could live in an evil country, but they are back to living in a country that will defend its borders. Without defenders, pacifists are sheep in a world full of wolves.
The only way that pacifism would have worked for Christianity was if Christ would have returned within the first century.

 

[Brakelite]

Rome was about to snuff Christianity out.

No, only in Rome and immediate areas. Christianity was thriving without Rome in either of it's forms, and in places neither could reach.

Christ moved to bring Rome and the Christians together.

Christ brought His own church into apostasy and spiritual adultery in order to survive? That's the best He could do? You forget that it was the persecutions that gave life to the church.

It does not matter if it was the ancient world or modern day, Pacifists cannot survive on their own. The have to live in a country that is willing to defend itself. If a country does not defend itself, it will be conquered by evil. The pacifists could live in an evil country, but they are back to living in a country that will defend its borders.

So Christ can bring pagan Rome into collaboration with His church in order to protect His church, but can't take His church, or grow His church in a place He has designated as a protectorate?