Will the National Media Run with this Story?

[wu_shizzle]

Relevant:

[SB Shock]

No, you didn't read it right, but the last of your sentence would be correct though. I'll try to remember that next time so it's clear to everyone.

I thought it wasn't right - that is why I asked for a clarification.

[SB Shock]

Of course it means allowing them to physically assault you. He allowed them to kill him.

He allowed the Romans (and Pharisees) to kill him because it was God plan was that Jesus become an atoning sacrifice for our sins. There has to be a shedding of blood. He has said that whoever believed that Jesus was God, and confessed their sins to the Lord and repented would be forgiven and would spend eternity in Heaven.

If you think Jesus is a pacifist you might want to read the Old Testament and see how God handled disobedience (people of Sodom might disagree with you) or read Revelation and see how Jesus will finally handle sin of this world - there will be Judgment and it won't be pacifist.

[Rlh04d]

If you think Jesus is a pacifist you might want to read the Old Testament and see how God handled disobedience (people of Sodom might disagree with you) or read Revelation and see how Jesus will finally handle sin of this world - there will be Judgment and it won't be pacifist.

If you don't think Jesus is a pacifist, you might want to read the New Testament again.

A lot of the Old Testament is nullified in Jesus' words and actions.

[Rlh04d]

If you believe in Christian pacifism you have some problems following it to it's logical end.

Paul gives a reminder of the role of government in Romans 13:



If you believe in pacifism you have to believe that believers have no role in governing, when Paul clearly states that these institutions are established by God himself.

Another question asked by Christians is "Doesn't having a gun imply a lack of trust that God will take care of us?" Indeed, God will take care of us. He has also told us that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15) Those who trust God work for a living. 1 Timothy 5:8:



For a man not to work, yet expect to eat because he was "trusting God" would actually be to defy God. King David wrote in Psalm 46:1 that God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. This did not conflict with praising the God "Who trains my hand for war and my fingers for battle" (Psalm 144:1). The doctrine of Scripture is that we prepare and work, but we trust the outcome to God.

Those who trust God should also make adequate provision for their own defense even as we are instructed in the passages above. For a man to refuse to provide adequately for his and his family's defense would be to defy God. There is an additional concern to taking the position that "I don't need to arm myself. God will protect me."

At one point, when Satan was tempting Jesus in the wilderness, he challenged Jesus to throw himself off the top of the temple. Satan reasoned that God's angels would protect him. Jesus responded: "It is written again, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'" (Matthew 4:7) It may seem pious to say that one is trusting in God for protection, and we all must, but it is tempting God if we do not take the measures that He has clearly allowed for.

Jesus never says not to work. Jesus does say not to use violence.

It's honestly depressing that people would try to twist the words of Jesus around to justify violence when he was so specifically against it.

If Jesus' words weren't so clear on the subject, then I might accept your reasoning. However, that kind of reasoning is insanely flimsy when you're making assumptions and inferences that are directly contrary to Jesus' actual words and actions.

[jdmee]

I would just like to point out that Jesus can walk on water and heal himself. That pretty much makes him the ultimate Frenchman with plus +80 hit points and +80 speed on defense.

But can he hit a curve ball?

[SB Shock]

If you don't think Jesus is a pacifist, you might want to read the New Testament again.

A lot of the Old Testament is nullified in Jesus' words and actions.

The Old Testament is not "nullified" by the new testament - but fulfilled. The old testament is just as much about the Jesus as the new testament.

[Rlh04d]

The Old Testament is not "nullified" by the new testament - but fulfilled. The old testament is just as much about the Jesus as the new testament.

I don't know who "the Jesus" is. Jesus is a name. Christ is a title ... he is "the Christ."

As for the rest, the phrase "an eye for an eye" is specifically used in the Old Testament. Jesus quotes that exact line and nullifies it.

Leviticus 24:19: "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20. fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. WEB

38 ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

[SB Shock]

As for the rest, the phrase "an eye for an eye" is specifically used in the Old Testament. Jesus quotes that exact line and nullifies it.

Jesus said ""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." - Matthew 5:17


From Rev 19:11-21

11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse, and He who sat on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and wages war.

12 His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.

13 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.

14 And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.

15 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.

16 And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS."

17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and he cried out with a loud voice, saying to all the birds which fly in midheaven, "Come, assemble for the great supper of God,

18 so that you may eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders and the flesh of mighty men and the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them and the flesh of all men, both free men and slaves, and small and great."

19 And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.

20 And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone.

21 And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

[Rlh04d]

Jesus said ""Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill." - Matthew 5:17

And yet that doesn't address the quotes I put above.

Personally, I don't put any faith in the Book of Revelation. The New Testament was primarily written by Jesus' followers, and concerned themselves with the words and deeds of a man who we know existed. The Book of Revelation was written from a "vision" a hundred years of Jesus' death, and there is significant evidence that John of Patmos who wrote the book is not John the Prophet, as was historically believed. If John of Patmos and John the Prophet are not the same, then there isn't really anything that connects that Book to the others.

The content of it is so different from the rest of the Bible that I don't buy it.

[SB Shock]

Theologian Norman Geisler said "to permit murder when on could have prevent it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when on could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14).

[Rlh04d]

Theologian Norman Geisler said "to permit murder when on could have prevent it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when on could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally."

"Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:14).

I don't recall Norman Geisler's place in the Bible. Who was he?

And what part of laying down your life for your friends includes you using violence?

You can prevent murder, prevent rape, intervene in cruelty against children, and resist evil without violence. Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. did excellent work in standing up to cruelty, injustice, and evil without the use of violence by shining a spotlight on them.

[1979Shocker]

And yet that doesn't address the quotes I put above.

Personally, I don't put any faith in the Book of Revelations. The New Testament was primarily written by Jesus' followers, and concerned themselves with the words and deeds of a man who we know existed. The Book of Revelations was written from a "vision" a hundred years of Jesus' death, and there is significant evidence that John of Patmos who wrote the book is not John the Prophet, as was historically believed. If John of Patmos and John the Prophet are not the same, then there isn't really anything that connects that Book to the others.

The content of it is so different from the rest of the Bible that I don't buy it.

Incidentally, that's Revelation, singular, not Revelations.

[Rlh04d]

Incidentally, that's Revelation, singular, not Revelations.

D'oh!

[SB Shock]

And yet that doesn't address the quotes I put above.

No need to. Royal already explained to you the cultural context. Even Jesus didn't literally turn his cheek when he was hit by a member of the Sanhedrin.

Personally, I don't put any faith in the Book of Revelations.

It is the book of "Revelation of Jesus Christ", not "Revelations".

The content of it is so different from the rest of the Bible that I don't buy it.

Well, actually it not so different. You only need to go back to the Old Testament. In fact to understand "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" you need to be a student of the Old Testament. Approximately 70% of this book has an allusion to the Old Testament. Look to the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah.