Who would Jesus kill?

[swee]

http://www.iwilltryit.com/hollow.htm

[Guest]

Couldn't get the link.

But it's my understanding that as the third person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus would have to take at least one third of the responsibilty for all deaths everywhere! Every single person that has died throughout history. Think about it, it's his fault your Gran passed away.

Who would Jesus kill? Who wouldn't he!!!!

[Guest]

The New Testament is clearly a handbook for the individual, not a dissertation on the operation of government. Some believe that peace overrides all other factors, that we must do anything necessary to maintain peace. But that is not so. Jesus and the apostles certainly didn't do that. The New Testament clearly states that love overrides all other factors, but it does not say that about peace.

Following are some examples from the Bible of the acceptance of violence by Jesus Christ and by His apostles in certain circumstances.

Luke 22:36-38. Jesus instructed each disciple to get a sword, even if he had to sell his cloak to buy one. They had two swords among them, and Jesus said that was sufficient. He clearly was not opposed to the possession and use of swords.

Matthew 26:50-54. At Jesus' arrest, Peter used a sword to defend Jesus. Jesus told him not to and He healed the man Peter injured. It was time for Him to die and He was ready. He could have asked God for protection, but He did not (verse 53). His statement, "all who draw the sword will die by the sword," is often quoted today as a rejection of the use of weapons. But in another account of this incident, Jesus' point in having Peter put away his sword was His willingness to submit to arrest and death, rather than avoiding the use of weapons (John 18:11). If Jesus were a pacifist and opposed to any use of weapons, why would He allow his disciples to own them? In none of the gospels does Jesus rebuke His disciples for carrying weapons (swords). Jesus told Peter not to use his sword because (1) Jesus must be arrested, and (2) Peter was acting in the flesh rather than recognizing God's will.

Acts 25:6-12. Paul acknowledged the state's right to execute him if he was guilty. He defended himself and invoked his right as a Roman citizen to appeal to Caesar.

Matthew 24:43. If a thief might steal from you, it is appropriate to protect your possessions. This is such common sense that Jesus uses it as an example of being ready for His return.

Ephesians 6:10-18. This passage describes the "armor of God." Notice that only the sword is an offensive weapon; all other armor described is defensive in nature. This implies there is nothing inherently wrong with defending yourself.

Paul says, "If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men" (Rom 12:18; also Heb 12:14). If there is something we can do to avoid arguments or violence with others, then we are to do so. This does not mean, however, that we are to consistently allow evil people to do whatever they want, simply to "keep the peace." For example, Proverbs 25:26 describes a righteous man who gives way to the wicked as a polluted well. If we are aware of someone's evil intentions that will bring harm to others, we certainly need not seek peace by giving in to their demands. For example, you do not turn your child over to a child molester just to "keep peace."

So "peace" cannot always be the Christian's response, due to the evil intent of others. For example, Paul did not allow the immoral brother to continue influencing the Corinthians, though they may have felt it would keep the peace to allow him to remain. Instead, Paul said to expel him (1 Cor. 5:13). To another church, Paul instructed that if a person refuses to work, he should not receive the community's support: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Th 3:10). And if someone did not obey Paul's instructions, the church was not to associate with him in order to make him feel ashamed (2 Th. 3:14). The apostle John wrote that we are to refuse to welcome a brother who is teaching a different Christ (2 John 9-10). These are corrective actions intended to eventually restore the peace between spiritual brothers, but the short term effect is to disturb the peace.

Jesus himself, who brought us peace with God, stated "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword" (Mt 10:34). He then shows that the gospel will sever some relationships and create enemies within a person's own household. Yes, God is the God of peace and we are to live at peace to the extent possible, but as long as we live in a sin-dominated world that is hostile to our God and His kingdom, we will not always have peace. It is clear from these scriptures that our actions must occasionally and briefly disturb the peace so that long-term peace can be restored.

One of the biggest arguments against Christians defending themselves is that we are called to live in peace. It is clear from the scriptures that peace will not and cannot be overriding in all situations. There are times when a Christian must knowingly and deliberately break the peace to achieve a higher good. This in no way condones anarchy or a hostile nature. But God's kingdom and His righteousness (His work and His character; Mt 6:33) must be our highest priority, and this sometimes requires Christians to act non-peacefully in a sinful world. Peace is not always possible.

[mogadishu]

[Guest]

[Guest]

perhaps not, but you can apply common sense to it. many people believe jesus comments advocating the use of swords are fabrications. they directly contradict the sermon on the mount. jesus also spoke out against hypocrisy.

[Guest]

[mogadishu]

"blessed are the peacemakers"

"if someone hits you, give him your other cheek"

[mogadishu]

extrapolating that the new testament condones war on the basis that jesus ransacked a temple? file under S***.

[Guest]

[mogadishu]

erm... what?

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[mogadishu]

...