- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote I'm not good with Old English. What are you trying to say?
DAVID
That wasn't me saying that, it was Christ saying (You are to suffer this far)Quote You quote writings from 200 C.E. as though they were scripture. You say you've never gotten a response, I still maintain that scriptures show that early Christians were just as prone to error as we are (as I submitted earlier). We should be following the teaching of scriptures, not other writings which support our view point. SeekingTruth
If you are truly seeking truth you would not limit your seeking to just those writings which have been edited first by those in the Sanhedrin who put Christ on the cross and then by those Catholics who crusaded against the Christians.
I do not limit my search to scriptures alone but If your quoting a source “as proof” to support your side of a discussion, and it's not directly supported by scripture, it cannot carry the same weight (and may even be questionable).
Quote (TJStarfire @ May 11 2006,15:13) Quote You quote writings from 200 C.E. as though they were scripture. You say you've never gotten a response, I still maintain that scriptures show that early Christians were just as prone to error as we are (as I submitted earlier). We should be following the teaching of scriptures, not other writings which support our view point. SeekingTruth
If you are truly seeking truth you would not limit your seeking to just those writings which have been edited first by those in the Sanhedrin who put Christ on the cross and then by those Catholics who crusaded against the Christians.
Hi TJS,Is there any other source of writing to be looked to in comparison or placed authoritatively beside or above the holy scriptures?
You may respond to that in the “Bible” thread, last post there was May 6, 2006 (page 2) of the discussion thread if you start from the beginning.
Here's a link.
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….=1;t=67Hi David (& Starfire):
I agree with much of what you've had to say in your last post from the “love among all” thread. I feel misunderstood to say that I am advocating war… My prayer is for peace for all men, for the mind of Christ, and to be led by his spirit and not by fear, pride or whatever else. I am looking at the whole word of God of which Christ said we should live by, and thereby finding my footing within that scope and having his love as a banner which leads me.
I often cite John 10 when Jesus tells the Jews, “if he called them Gods to whom the word of the Lord came, how say you that I blaspheme because I say that I am the son of God?” to help others see the falseness of the Trinity.
Starfire: It is the same question that I ask you now: How say ye that I preach hatred and another way when I follow Christ's own example?
The topic of this very thread “Christians who kill,” jumbles together the warmongers, haters, etc and people like Todd Beamer (he is the only example I can think of now) and others who lay their lives down selflessly for others. My point was to define the boundaries, to determine if Christ has absolutely classified all such actions as sin… if Todd's example is sin or virtue… if we may not look to any old testament example such as David and Abraham as I cited before.
I've appreciated your input and time.
Hey Nick. Yah, I've been wanting to keep this discussion in this thread, but in some ways it does apply, or overlap. Sorry.
Quote The Belgian newspaper La Dernière Heure relates that during the war Roman Catholic Cardinal Amette of Paris said this to the French soldiers: “My brothers, comrades of the French army and of their glorious allies, the Almighty God is on our side. . . . God is near to our brave soldiers in battle, he gives them strength and fortifies them against the enemy. . . . God will give us the victory.”
At the same time, on the other side, the Catholic archbishop of Cologne, Germany, said to German soldiers:
“God is with us in this fight for righteousness . . . We command you in the name of God, to fight to the last drop of your blood for the honor and glory of the country. . . . God knows that we are on the side of righteousness and he will give us the victory.”
(La Dernière Heure, January 7, 1967)As the New York Times observed:
“In the past local Catholic hierarchies almost always supported the wars of their nations, blessing troops and offering prayers for victory, while another group of [Catholic] bishops on the other side publicly prayed for the opposite outcome.” (New York Times, December 29, 1966, p. 3.)
Protestant leaders did the same.Does this make any sense in the light of Jesus words:
“By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”” (JOHN 13:35)The other thread was called something like: “Which religion has LOVE AMONG ALL?”
I believe when one person of a certain religion decides to kill another person of the same religion because they are in another country, that is not love, and hence a disqualifying factor to the question. That's why in that thread I kept using those scriptures that speak about true Christians having “love among themselves,” which certain ones responded to by asking why I was repeatedly making it about that. There are many issues involved in justifying killing for ones government in war. The love among all thread did come into play, but you're right, and I much prefer having the same conversation only in one thread.Cubes, what do you think of the quote above?
Or what do you think of the fact that the early Christians held a much different view than you on this? What do you make of that?Quote Is there any other source of writing to be looked to in comparison or placed authoritatively beside or above the holy scriptures? There have been a lot of written doctrine that was taught before and at the time of Christ which the enemies of Christ did not include in our modern bible. I have taken those all into account even then teachings of other religions around the world need to be taken into account.
You don't think the Jews were to only people on earth that God shows Himself to,
when He visits this part of His galaxy do you?Rev 1 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him,
Just look at all of the geoglyphs that sprang up all around this globe at the time it is reported that God last walked on this world openly.
Romans 1 When they knew God, they glorified him Not As God, neither were they thankful;
but became Vain in their Imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things.Quote Starfire: It is the same question that I ask you now: How say ye that I preach hatred and another way when I follow Christ's own example? I don’t necessarily say that you yourself preach hatred,
I do say that any person who accepts or supports those doing violence to others are not Christians. They are wolves in sheeps clothing.Luke 3 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Quote (david @ May 12 2006,05:24) Hey Nick. Yah, I've been wanting to keep this discussion in this thread, but in some ways it does apply, or overlap. Sorry. Quote The Belgian newspaper La Dernière Heure relates that during the war Roman Catholic Cardinal Amette of Paris said this to the French soldiers: “My brothers, comrades of the French army and of their glorious allies, the Almighty God is on our side. . . . God is near to our brave soldiers in battle, he gives them strength and fortifies them against the enemy. . . . God will give us the victory.”
At the same time, on the other side, the Catholic archbishop of Cologne, Germany, said to German soldiers:
“God is with us in this fight for righteousness . . . We command you in the name of God, to fight to the last drop of your blood for the honor and glory of the country. . . . God knows that we are on the side of righteousness and he will give us the victory.”
(La Dernière Heure, January 7, 1967)As the New York Times observed:
“In the past local Catholic hierarchies almost always supported the wars of their nations, blessing troops and offering prayers for victory, while another group of [Catholic] bishops on the other side publicly prayed for the opposite outcome.” (New York Times, December 29, 1966, p. 3.)
Protestant leaders did the same.Does this make any sense in the light of Jesus words:
“By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves.”” (JOHN 13:35)…
Cubes, what do you think of the quote above?
Or what do you think of the fact that the early Christians held a much different view than you on this? What do you make of that?
Hi David:Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you. I think that the quotes illustrate what you are saying which I do not dispute.
My issue is simply this: Jesus told us to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We are to be known by our love and gentleness not hatred, aggression or violence. Does this mean that ALL and each instance that necessitates a person ever having to harm an opponent equates sin?
I am saying that as long as there are aspects of scripture that justifies a man in certain situations, I cannot fully agree that all instances of such defense is sin; that to promote that level of ultra-nonviolence may in fact backfire and make the nonviolene as idolatry in and of itself; taboo, prohibitive, making God appear to be merciless and unforgiving like false gods who are incapable of discernment and righteous judgments, and make me more as the gentle buddhist monk (who cannot dig the ground for fear of harming a worm) than the Jesus who took the whip and drove people out of his Father's temple and called others “fools, blind, vipers” etc!
Quote the Jesus who took the whip and drove people out of his Father's temple and called others “fools, blind, vipers” etc!
There is nothing wrong with righteous indignation, as shown by Jesus. Jesus however was not hacking people up with swords, but rather driving the money changers out. Jesus had great love for his Father's house, not for the kingdoms of the world.
If Jesus were here today, can you really picture him with a machine gun, shooting people of one country, to defend another? His kingdom is “no part of the world,” just as his followers are “no part of the world,” or worldy conflicts.Quote that to promote that level of ultra-nonviolence may in fact backfire
I endorse or promote this level of violence:
PROVERBS 3:31
“Do not become envious of the man of violence, nor choose any of his ways.”
PSALM 11:5
“Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, And anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.”We are not to choose any of the ways of a man of violence.
Cubes, I know what you're saying. I know about the “just war” theory and the criteria to make a war “just.” There are very few wars that fit that criteria.
Quote My issue is simply this: Jesus told us to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves.
Cubes, I want you to picture a dove with a gun under it's wing. Now, I want you to picture the dove attacking you. Is this gentle? Imagining a dove doing this is ridiculous, of course. We are to be as cautious as a serpent and innocent as a doves.“Look! I am sending YOU forth as sheep amidst wolves; therefore prove yourselves cautious as serpents and yet innocent as doves.
True Christians are not to be a part of the world. They are not to take on the roles of the wolves. They are to be different, distinct. Their mission or goal is not that of the worlds. Yes, we would be among the wolves, but not be wolves ourselves. So being among them, we must be “cautious as serpents,” yet, at the same time, we must still be “innocent as doves.”PHILIPPIANS 2:15
“that YOU may come to be blameless and innocent, children of God without a blemish in among a crooked and twisted generation, among whom YOU are shining as illuminators in the world,”While living in this world, this crooked and twisted generation, we are not of it.
Quote We are to be known by our love and gentleness not hatred, aggression or violence. Does this mean that ALL and each instance that necessitates a person ever having to harm an opponent equates sin?
If we are to be known and even identified by love, etc, then how could pre-emptively choosing to be violent in certain situations reflect that?
I feel there is a grand difference between choosing to become a soldier as opposed to pushing someone off of you who attacks you, or having to deal with a situation that arises that you find yourself in. If you find yourself with a gun in your hand standing in a field, then that is what you chose. You have shed men's blood. Your blood will be shed. You have taken up the gun. You will die by the gun.
But of course, the real question is: Does God want you to be holding that gun? Does God want your blood to be shed? Doves aren't known for the blood on their fangs and claws. Wait, do doves have fangs? No. Those are the wolves.Quote We are to be known by our love and gentleness not hatred, aggression or violence.
So, in times of violence and killing and war, are “Christians” generally considered different? Do they stand out? Are they recognized as Christians because of their stand on this issue? No. They are right in their with the wolves, on both sides of the war.
True Christians would be different, distinguishable, no part of the world.
The early Christians were certainly distinguishable–being put to death for their refusal to kill others for their governments. Not a lot of groups like that today.Quote Does this mean that ALL and each instance that necessitates a person ever having to harm an opponent equates sin?
Cubes, have you found yourself in situations that necessitate you having to harm someone, your “opponent.” Where are you from?Just discussing this scripture in the “spiritual warefare” thread and can't remember if it found it's way into this thread.
2 CORINTHIANS 10:3, 4:
“Though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage warfare according to what we are in the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but powerful by God for overturning strongly entrenched things.”2 CORINTHIANS 10:3,4 (New International Version)
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.”What do you think Cubes? Do we wage war as the world does? Do we use weapons as the world does? Or are Christians to be different? Are Christians rather, concerned with an entirely different warefare, not one of these worldly conflicts?
I love my two sons, but for their good I would punish them as needed. Surely Peter heard from God with Ananias and Sapphira. I agree with Cubes non-violence can become a stumbling block.
I heard someone say once that we are trying to be nicer than God.
I agree that killing and even violence is wrong, for me as an individual serving my needs and desires, but Love can motivate me for the good or protection of others, to do what needs to be done, not in a way to be vengeful but in a way to restrain evil. (And yes David I do believe God would have us do this, just as God could feed the hungry, but as James points out, God has left that to us).
Love sometimes means doing what's hard, things we don't want to do, even God does this, (He is not willing that any should perish, but for the sake of others, they will perish).
Quote I agree with Cubes non-violence can become a stumbling block. And I agree with the early Christians and Jesus. And I also note what was fortold:
2 PETER 2:1-3
“However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these THE WAY OF THE TRUTH WILL BE SPOKEN OF ABUSIVELY.”What would be a stumbling block to Christianity would be the things that resulted from the fortold apostasy. Christians are not known for their lack of violence.
The Christian Century article. “That Christians on the one hand espouse the faith of the gentle Savior while on the other they warmly support religious or nationalistic wars has gone far toward damaging the faith.”seekingtruth, if I was shown a video of you killing people, I would not associate you with Jesus. I would associate you with the world. It's true, there are people suffering all over the world–some from hunger, poverty, war, disease, etc.
While Jesus was on earth, he primarily spent his time telling others about God's kingdom (which will bring an end to such horrible things). We bring these ones good news and encourage them to serve God–good news that things are going to change.
God will put an end to the things I have listed. I 10 year old chinese boy, (Andrew) who my brother in law studies with, a very smart boy, asked this question: “If I fix the human genome so that it is perfect, will God be mad?” Curing diseases is a noble cause–but not the solution. The real solution lies with God. Feed the poor. Do not kill them.Those talking about war often speak of “defending the innocent.” Which country is this that everyone is speaking about?
Seekingtruth, which country do you live in?
Quote If Jesus were here today, can you really picture him with a machine gun, shooting people of one country, to defend another? His kingdom is “no part of the world,” just as his followers are “no part of the world,” or worldy conflicts.
No, I can't.Quote CUBES: that to promote that level of ultra-nonviolence may in fact backfire DAVID: I endorse or promote this level of violence:
PROVERBS 3:31
“Do not become envious of the man of violence, nor choose any of his ways.”
PSALM 11:5
“Jehovah himself examines the righteous one as well as the wicked one, And anyone loving violence His soul certainly hates.”We are not to choose any of the ways of a man of violence.
Cubes, I know what you're saying. I know about the “just war” theory and the criteria to make a war “just.” There are very few wars that fit that criteria.
As long as you know what I am saying: Because I am not promoting violence or saying that I like anything about violence.Quote CUBES: My issue is simply this: Jesus told us to be as wise as serpents and gentle as doves. DAVID: Cubes, I want you to picture a dove with a gun under it's wing. Now, I want you to picture the dove attacking you. Is this gentle? Imagining a dove doing this is ridiculous, of course. We are to be as cautious as a serpent and innocent as a doves.
That is not a position I have defended.
Quote CUBES: We are to be known by our love and gentleness not hatred, aggression or violence. Does this mean that ALL and each instance that necessitates a person ever having to harm an opponent equates sin? DAVID: If we are to be known and even identified by love, etc, then how could pre-emptively choosing to be violent in certain situations reflect that?
Nor have I suggested this whatsoever. In my statement, one actually does not choose at all to be violent but is in a grave situation (the scale or proportion is irrelevant) such as you describe below and having to by necessity be violent:
SITUATION A:
Quote I feel there is a grand difference between choosing to become a soldier as opposed to pushing someone off of you who attacks you, or having to deal with a situation that arises that you find yourself in. See, I feel that some Rwandans, or Jews, or other people around the entire world find themselves in such situations unfortunately, regardless of their race, faith or creed.
SITUATION B:
Quote If you find yourself with a gun in your hand standing in a field, then that is what you chose. You have shed men's blood. Your blood will be shed. You have taken up the gun. You will die by the gun.
But of course, the real question is: Does God want you to be holding that gun? Does God want your blood to be shed? Doves aren't known for the blood on their fangs and claws. Wait, do doves have fangs? No. Those are the wolves.I have personally not had any such aspirations. And yet I say, career choices aside, a person in Situation A may by necessity find him/herself behaving as one in Situation B, depending on the scale of events and other dynamics that we are not qualified to itemize. I am saying that it is possible for a person in Situation B to be justified as the one in Situation A given the details of events.
Quote CUBES: We are to be known by our love and gentleness not hatred, aggression or violence. DAVID: So, in times of violence and killing and war, are “Christians” generally considered different? Do they stand out? Are they recognized as Christians because of their stand on this issue? No. They are right in their with the wolves, on both sides of the war.
True Christians would be different, distinguishable, no part of the world.
The early Christians were certainly distinguishable–being put to death for their refusal to kill others for their governments. Not a lot of groups like that today.That goes without saying on any level. It doesn't take a war for people to determine when one is truly a christian. People, I find do that, in gazillion of ways daily.
There is also no army of presbytarians, or baptists, or methodists or JWs going to war. There are just individuals glorifying or bringing reproach to the Name. It is our daily responsibility to bring him glory as individuals. Praise God all the more when we work as group to that end!
Quote Cubes, have you found yourself in situations that necessitate you having to harm someone, your “opponent.” Where are you from? Well, there was this one time I was held up at gun point while working as a cashier. The thought to HARM the person (or any other person) never crossed my mind actually (I'd been too stunned) but I did briefly consider doing one of those karate moves then (ha ha), and then remembered my family and thought, Bruce Lee is dead so I did not try to resist evil. I told the guy to help himself to the cash. He did. He was picked up about 3 hrs later by the police. Now who can say if they needed to use a gun and who would I be to judge them if they actually had to? I did not experience one iota of hatred then or now for the guy. It wasn't about that.
I every now and then find myself in unsafe situations but no, I can't say that any has been so bad as to prompt me to want to harm some one. Thank God. I often pray the Lord's prayer and there is a reason for it and I thank him for his faithfulness.
I am from Africa and live in the U.S., David.
Hi Cubes. I had thought you were from the U.S. So if Africa and the U.S. go to war. If for whatever reason we find that Africa just happens to be sitting on oil and they don't feel like sharing…..which direction will your gun be pointing and who exactly will you be defending? I realize that at present this is an unlikely scenario. Canada (where I'm from) has a lot of oil. But Canadians are too much like Americans. We live amongst you. We look like American's. We speak the language. America would never presently get behind a war against Canada.
Cubes, just two things:
Quote 2 CORINTHIANS 10:3,4 (New International Version)
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.”What do you think Cubes? Do we wage war as the world does? Do we use weapons as the world does? Or are Christians to be different?
And the matter of the early Christians. Were they the wrong ones?
Modern Importance of Early Christian Example
Those who lived nearest to the time of the Founder of Christianity were the most likely to be informed of his intentions and will.
Jesus made special efforts to clarify His teachings and commandments to His own followers.
The early Christians benefited by the personal example of Jesus and the Apostles.
Jesus’ followers practiced their ideals in their lives without those adulterations known to have been introduced by the lapse of ages.
Consciences were then not dulled by compromise with the world.
*
In taking this stand, the early Christians repelled the very same arguments which are advanced today by opponents of conscientious objection.
*The common question of what would happen to the welfare of the nation if all took the same stand as the Christians was answered masterfully by Origenes in the reply to Celsus. (I have the conversation if you'd like)
The view of Christians as social parasites, benefiting from society yet refusing to cooperate in preserving it, was similarly countered by Origenes in this same treatise where he emphasizes the positive service that Christians do render to the state.
The conduct of these early Christians and others since affords proof that Christian principles are not above the possibility of being carried out by men and represents a foretaste of the future when “peace on earth, good will to men” will become a reality.
The early Christian opposition to war, even though it led to suffering, persecution, and martyrdom, involved less conflict and suffering than any other course consistent with faithfulness to their cause.
That their actions were prompted through cowardice or fear of death is understood when it is recognized that:
Cowards could not have endured torture and martyrdom with the constancy and faithfulness that the early Christians displayed.
Christians do not fear death, realizing that eternal life has been gained for them through the love and power of God and the sacrifice of their Lord and Redeemer.
My question is simply this: Were the early Christians wrong in this?
Violence / non-violence
These only become stumbling blocks when mis-interpreted.
Too many people think that violence is any use of physical force against another.
It is not,
the true definition of violence requires intent,
the Intent to harm.Quote (TJStarfire @ May 16 2006,15:38) Violence / non-violence
These only become stumbling blocks when mis-interpreted.
Too many people think that violence is any use of physical force against another.
It is not,
the true definition of violence requires intent,
the Intent to harm.
Hi Starfire and David:I agree, Starfire. Jesus said something similar, didn't he?
This has been what I've tried to say that vengeance need not have a part in defense. Just because a dog is protective of its puppies does not mean that it hates. God made her that way. Why should humans have to justify feeling the same about their own young or aged ones or others? So the concept that Jesus condemns every instance of “violence” even when it is in such contexts is what I disagree with.
DAVID: I can't see him taking a machine gun and blowing people up and I can't see him saying, shepherds, it's ok to let them kill you and scatter the sheep; parents, to let them kill you and dash your children against the rocks, mutilate them or whatever wickedness they can come up with… Don't fight back…
The scriptures do not show us scenarios when Jesus family or disciples were being harmed in his presence. He didn't save JTB out of prison because JTB is a great prophet who could have himself asked God for such a miracle if he so desired but how else would the prophecy concerning the killing of the prophets be fulfilled in him? How else could he have such a part with those who are killed for the gospel. I am not saying that he did it for glory at all, but again, we didn't see a scenario of his dear parents being abused and how he may have dealt with it.
Since we don't see those portraits in the NT, we cannot altogether rule out those given in the OT and how such problems were resolved.
There are guys I know who would put up with insults until you say something about their “momma” and that's just a line you don't cross. You know them. Well the bible doesn't tell us how Jesus dealt with a similar thing. I know he cried for Jerusalem foreseeing what shall befall it.
So David, in answer to one of your questions about the early Christians, I can say as I said before, certainly many died whose part is in the Lord's kingdom. But it is also possible that some people perished needlessly for lack of knowledge. People, including the earlier Christians have believed all kinds of things… like again, inviting and PURSUING poverty, suffering and what's that called when people self-inflict pain punitively as to pay for their sins as though that in and of itself was going to make them holier? Pursuing celibacy (noble though it can be) as if that in and of itself would make them holy and acceptable…. only to find it rather led to sin… meanwhile God gave us the OT examples of priests and such being married. Never mind the Apostle Peter. Suppose his marital status was not mentioned, then what?
You have the modern guys who say: those guys were wrong in pursuing poverty so now swinging the pendelum to the other extreme, they end up PURSUING blessings and wealth… Whatever happened to just pursuing God? Dividing the word of God rightly by virtue of the mind of Christ given us by the holy spirit. Living by his principles and yet, having room to make determinations when something off the list shows up? You know, having wisdom derived from the cumulative meditations on God's words which we have taken for a heritage and by which we live?
I want the yoke of Christ which is easier than men like to make it, David, to live and move within the freedom that Jesus did — which is the full boundaries of scripture. When he quotes to the Pharisees how David ate of the showbread is one of my favorite passages of scripture!!! See how he bridges what we consider to be OT & NT, THE GOD OF THE OT (CONSIDERED VICIOUS BY SOME) AND the GOD OF THE NT (THE NICE, SWEET JESUS WHO WOULDN'T HURT A FLY). Let's not make the same mistakes. It is one book! Yet mercy triumphs over judgment and ought to, but mercy and defense do not necessarily oppose each other.
Hey cubes,
Quote DAVID: I can't see him taking a machine gun and blowing people up and I CAN'T SEE HIM SAYING, SHEPHERDS, IT'S OK TO LET THEM KILL YOU and scatter the sheep; Quote He didn't save JTB out of prison because JTB is a great prophet who could have himself asked God for such a miracle if he so desired but HOW ELSE WOULD THE PROPHECY CONCERNING THE KILLING OF THE PROPHETS BE FULLFILLED in him? You can't see Jesus saying: “It's ok to let them kill you.” But at the same time you point to the prophecy obout the prophets being killed.
MATTHEW 23:34
“For this reason, here I am sending forth to YOU prophets and wise men and public instructors. Some of them YOU will kill and impale, and some of them YOU will scourge in YOUR synagogues and persecute from city to city;”LUKE 11:48-50
“Certainly YOU are witnesses of the deeds of YOUR forefathers and yet YOU give consent to them, because these killed the prophets but YOU are building [their tombs]. On this account the wisdom of God also said, ‘I will send forth to them prophets and apostles, and they will kill and persecute some of them, so that the blood of all the prophets spilled from the founding of the world may be required from this generation,”2 TIMOTHY 3:12
“In fact, all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted.”It's a fact that those desiring to live with godly devotion will face persecution.
It seems true Christians are prophesied to be killed, not to do the killing. This is there lot in life.
Quote People, including the earlier Christians have believed all kinds of things… like again, inviting and PURSUING poverty, suffering and what's that called when people self-inflict pain punitively as to pay for their sins as though that in and of itself was going to make them holier? Pursuing celibacy (noble though it can be) as if that in and of itself would make them holy and acceptable…. only to find it rather led to sin… meanwhile God gave us the OT examples of priests and such being married. Never mind the Apostle Peter. Suppose his marital status was not mentioned, then what? Did the early Christians pursue and invite poverty? They did put their ministry ahead of money, and worldly pursuits. But I don't believe they actively sought out poverty. If they were poor materially, they were rich spiritually, as they spent their time on more noble godly pursuits.
As for self-inflicting pain, I'm not sure what you mean. Are you referring to the drinking poison and handling snakes that are found in some Bible manuscripts but not the oldest ones? I again don't know that there is any evidence at all that the early Christians inflicted pain upon themselves. To be certain, they did suffer at the hands of their persecutors. They suffered for refusing to be a part of society and a part of the world. They were different and their ways were different and were persecuted, as ALL those will godly devotion must be. (2 Tim 3:12)
“Suppose Peter's marital status was not mentioned. Then what” you ask.
Peter had a mother in law. The apostles were married, for the most part. It was not the early Christians that ruled out marriage, rather those who came later, “forbidding to marry,” as scripture prophesied:
1 TIMOTHY 4:1-3
“However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth.”
If we didn't know that Peter and others were married, we would still have the scripture that says:
1 TIMOTHY 3:12
“Let ministerial servants be husbands of one wife, presiding in a fine manner over children and their own households.”
If we didn't know that Peter was married, we could realize that God created man and women and he put them together. He gave them a mandate, to fill the earth. Then there's Paul's words, which indicate that it is better not to marry, if you can manage it, because there's such important work to be done and being married divides your time between God and your mate. We are living in “critical times” which are the “last days” and perhaps it would be better not to marry, if you can control yourself and manage it. But we are no where commanded not to marry. In fact, it was fortold that some would follow “teachings of demons” and forbid to marry. It certainly is a teaching of the demons and has lead to much horrid abuse and unnatural things.I actually forget why we're discussing this.
Anyway,
Quote So David, in answer to one of your questions about the early Christians, I can say as I said before, certainly many died whose part is in the Lord's kingdom. But it is also possible that some people perished needlessly for lack of knowledge.
So the early Christians were not as knowledgeable about what Jesus and the apostles taught? I find this impossible to believe. I know there was an apostasy, as fortold. I know that means that twisted thinking and unhealthful teachings crept into the Christian congregation. So, was the early Christians thinking wrong, or was the thinking of Christians who came later wrong?
If you're suggesting that the early Christians as a whole who had fathers and great grandfathers who knew the apostles somehow had this one thing completely wrong and that later on, (coincidentally around the time that false teachings and paganisms of all sorts were entering “Christianity”) somehow the early Christians wrong thinking became corrected, then there is nothing I can say to you.
The early Christians were no part of the world. And suddenly, they were. It was ok. Suddenly, a lot of wrong things were ok. And a lot of teachings became similar to paganism. And the early Christians split up into many divisions, because men crept in who wanted power. These men who were speaking twisted things didn't care too too much about remaining loyal to God. They had their ambition to remain loyal to. War was not a problem for them.
I don't think the early Christians had it wrong. I think they had it exactly right.Quote In taking this stand, the early Christians repelled the very same arguments which are advanced today by opponents of conscientious objection.
And had you been alive back then, let's say in the year 110 C.E., and there was a government dispute and a nation decided to go to war, you would have been the one on the outside, (you would have fit in with the world) different from the Christians. Today, I feel being different from apostasized Christianity is a good thing. “the way of the truth” is being spoken of abusive
ly because of the actions of those claiming to be Christians. Not so, back then. Back then, when Christianity was united, and united in their Bible based belief that a Christian's weapons are not the weapons of the world.
2 CORINTHIANS 10:3,4 (New International Version)
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.”Cubes, what do you think of this scripture?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
