If it is so important to you, go on then and believe that Joshua conquered cities that weren’t even inhabited yet when these events supposedly took place!
What makes our respective views on Scripture off topic, is that I’ve already stated that I’m totally willing to work under your assumption that the Book of Joshua depicts total historical fact. My argument does not depend on my view of the Bible as opposed to yours. Not being aware of our archaeological findings, Tertullian probably never questioned the historicity of the Conquest of Canaan either, and yet in “De Idolatria”, Chapter 19, he explicitly says that Joshua’s warfare is no excuse for Christians to become soldiers, because Christ has taken away the sword (
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm). I could not agree with him more:
“ But Jesus said, “No more of this!” (Luke 22:51)
Without the help of the Holy Spirit the Bible will indeed remain a useless book with seven seals to you.
It is cherrypicking when you pick verses out of context whilst ignoring the general direction the Bible takes. From our Christian perspective that direction is Christ’s Passion and Resurrection!
Gosh, are you realizing that indirectly you imply that God made a mistake when He forbid that Cain is killed?
I amply demonstrated how Jesus did revoke the death penalty.
“But I say to you …”. With your reasoning concerning the death penalty you might as well feel the need to worship God with burnt offerings because Noah did and you somehow managed to completely overlook Isaiah 1 and the entire Letter to the Hebrews.
His earlier followers certainly got Christ’s new message and didn’t share your lenient stance on “thou shall not kill”. Here’s from Lactantius’ “Institutiones Divinae”, written between 303 and 311:
“For when God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but He warns us against the commission of those things which are esteemed lawful among men. Thus it will be neither lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is justice itself, nor to accuse any one of a capital charge, because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword, since it is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all; but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal.” http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07016.htm
So we don’t need to act on the Sermon on the Mount?
“46 “Why do you keep calling me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but don’t do what I tell you? 47 I will show you what everyone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. 48 They are like a person building a house, who dug a deep hole to lay the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the floodwaters pushed against that house but couldn’t shake it, because it had been founded on the rock.[p] 49 But the person who hears what I say[q] but doesn’t act on it is like someone who built a house on the ground without any foundation. When the floodwaters pushed against it, that house[r] quickly collapsed, and the resulting destruction of that house was extensive.” (Luke 6:46-49)
Yepp, to do what the Lord tells us to do seems tough. But the bigger our faith the more we are compelled to do so and then the “yoke is pleasant” and the “burden is light” (Mt 11:30).
So what’s the one law Christians still do have?
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” (John 13:34)
Love is not a “work”. We can’t force ourselves to love. But when God give us true faith, love – including love for our enemies - is the inevitable fruit. A lack of love demonstrates a lack of faith.
I can’t believe I’m reading this! You’ve just questioned the very premise of the Nuremberg Trials! Tell you what: Even though he was a Nazi I loved my grandfather dearly. But I had bigger respect for a grand-uncle who got executed for disobeying orders. I suppose this grand-uncle realized that in that situation he
“must obey God rather than men!” (Acts 5:29)
And the winner is right? Seriously? I see all these glorious victorious Empires in human history eventually falling.
I do indeed give to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But there are limits that the early Christians were still aware of:
The above mentioned Tertullian thought serving in the military meant serving Satan. Maximilian the Martyr is just one of the many Christians who’d rather be beheaded than serve in the military. For Basil of Caesarea soldiers killing their opponents were in the same league as women aborting their babies. (
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202188.htm). And the Traditio Apostolica, one of the earliest church orders, says: “A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected.
10If someone is a military governor,a or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected.
11The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God.” (
http://www.bombaxo.com/hippolytus.html)
…
There goes my feeble attempt at humor. But yeah, let’s just forget about David’s adultery and murder. After all, he repented.
And of course those of us who became soldiers, bearing the mark of the beast as so many Christians did after Christianity became Roman state religion, can still repent, too. May the Lord have mercy on their souls.
