Christians and War

a reply to: Sigismundus

When Jesus said:

(Matthew 10:34) Do not think I came to bring peace to the earth; I came to bring, not peace, but a sword.

It was not because Christians were going to fight. Rather, Jesus knew that people who converted to Christianity would be hated by their own kinsmen, their own family, and not because of the Christians, but because of those family members who hated them, there would be division and war. Even Jesus' own brothers did not believe in him. And today, many who take the side of truth are hated and spit upon by their fathers, and mothers, and brothers and sisters. This is not because they want it, it is because those hateful scorners of what is good and right hate Christians because they love truth.

Jesus knew this.

a reply to: JackReyes

How is that not taking a side? Even if its momentary, a stance was taken against the bankers.

If we are to follow him in that premise, it seems you are taking sides as well in your judgments of a fake Christian versus a real Christian.

Do you consider yourself a real Christian, or a fake one? If no side is to be taken, then would it make a difference either way?

a reply to: JackReyes

You wrote QUOTE "It was not because Christians were going to fight. Rather, Jesus knew that people who converted to Christianity would be hated by their own kinsmen, their own family, and not because of the Christians, but because of those family members who hated them, their would be division and war..." UNQUOTE

I don't think you answered any of my earlier points on my post which outlined a clear Zealot Tendenz in the Greek canonical council approved gospels and all the Zealot-related Greek terms placed into the mouth of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir (aka "Jesus" c. BCE 12 to c, 36 CE), especially reflected in his arrest for armed sedition and breach of Lex Maiestatis ('no king but Caesar') landed him on a Roman cross. The year 36 CE would moreover have been a pivotal time for any proto-zealot uprising since it was the 100th anniversary of the invasion of the Roman Army into Jerusalem in 63 BCE by Pompey and ended 100 years of marginal self rule under the Maccabees (163 BCE - 63 BCE).

Or as the Greek canonical gospels place into his mouth ' The Times of the Gentiles are fulfilled; repent, and believe in the Good News !'

Or do you imagine that the slave of the high priest's ear was cut off with a butter knife left over from the last Supper?

So I am going to puke from the first couple of posts. As an agnostic, to see christians going at it tooth and nail, does my heart good. Keep it up, and you will either make us believe in the one true god, or kill each other.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: JackReyes

How is that not taking a side? Even if its momentary, a stance was taken against the bankers.

If we are to follow him in that premise, it seems you are taking sides as well in your judgments of a fake Christian versus a real Christian.

Do you consider yourself a real Christian, or a fake one? If no side is to be taken, then would it make a difference either way?

Those "money changers" were Jews. They were not a part of a political party. They were part of God's chosen people. And they preyed upon them. At that time people came to Jerusalem from all over the Roman world to worship in Jerusalem. And because of that, they came with their foreign currencies. The money changers would charge a fee to change that money, and then also, the priests of Jehovah's temple was charging these humble and sheep-like people for sheep, that they then would reject as sacrifices at Jehovah's alter.

Nowhere was anything political involved. Just a crass robbery of Jehovah's people. And Jesus saw it, and he could NOT stand the usury that was going on at his Father's house.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Jesus did not plan on becoming king while on earth. And he was not arrested by the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin on this count.

He was arrested because he was the son of God. And when they convened illegally at night, and called together false witnesses that could not corroborate their own testimony, they broke prodigal, and law, again and again, to put him to death. They only pinned the charge of sedition on Jesus, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to the Romans, because they knew, their own Jewish customs could not put God's son to death.

And yes, I did answer your very first scripture you quoted. And since you could not refute it, I saw no need to go further with you.

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Sigismundus

Jesus did not plan on becoming king while on earth. And he was not arrested by the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin on this count.

He was arrested because he was the son of God. And when they convened illegally at night, and called together false witnesses that could not corroborate their own testimony, they broke prodigal, and law, again and again, to put him to death. They only pinned the charge of sedition on Jesus, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, to the Romans, because they knew, their own Jewish customs could not put God's son to death.

And yes, I did answer your very first scripture you quoted. And since you could not refute it, I saw no need to go further with you.

Jesus is a figment of your imagination.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

He existed long before you or I were born, before the universe existed. His life on earth has had the testimony of four people preserved to this day, and written even into secular history.

a reply to: JackReyes

You wrote QUOTE "...yes, I did answer your very first scripture you quoted. And since you could not refute it, I saw no need to go further with you...." UNQUOTE

What about the other 4 quotations I offered for you to think about when it came to trying to piece together a "Jesus" that was pacifist when nothing further from the truth could possibly be imagined?

Try thinking a little deeper into the subject by reading Dr Aslan's book ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth(especially written in plain English without technical theological jargon for the layman, especially for those who have no Greek or Hebrew under their belts).

Your assertion of Jesus eschewing war or violent actions (the 'peacenik Jesus flies in the face of the evidence on all sides, especially his riot in the temple which was NOT a peaceful protest by any stretch...

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Except for the fact that the Romans hated the Christians for refusing to celebrate their holidays and participating in their wars.

Then how come the Romans were the ones who ''legalized'' it, spread it and make it mandatory official religion of the Roman Empire?

That's why they created Christianity from the Messianic Jewish beliefs, to counter the above issues in your argument.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”Romans 13

That meant that Roman authorities were appointed by God, that's how Messianic beliefs of Jews adapted and become the christian Church of Rome.

Read any history and you knew this. There was no Roman officer or solider who converted to Christianity who could remain in the army. And Christians were viciously persecuted by the Romans and thrown into their Gladiatorial combats, and were eaten by lions in front of shrieking crowds of pagan Romans, because of their stance of strict Christian neutrality. Your argument belies a fundamental lack of knowledge of Christian history.

What you are referring to were Messianic Jews, revolutionists and various enemies of Rome captured as slaves.
They ''Messianics'' were following the law of Moses there is no evidence that they believed in Christ as we know him today. or that those where christians.
That was ''decided'' much later at the 2nd century by Eusebious the first Christian ''historian'' who of course isn't a reliable source as he was writing religious texts and tried to connect the dots of the creation of the new dogma.
He was not writing actual history, none of them did.
Christ is a Greek word
So the Greek term Christians couldn't have been used back then, by those. it was given later by the Romans.

a reply to: Sigismundus

You should really try to understand Jesus' mind by reading what he said, by reading the four gospels. Jesus never committed a single act of aggression against a single human being, like you claim.

I realize you are believing other humans to bias your understanding. But throw away your own bias, and that of other people who hated Jesus, and just listen to what God's word says.

For you it may be easier to believe other sinful humans, and yourself, than God's infallible word of truth. And hate and lies sound better than truth to you. But what do you have to live for then?

Tell me what is your point? You hate God and his word and his son? What do you love?

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: BubbaJoe

He existed long before you or I were born, before the universe existed. His life on earth has had the testimony of four people preserved to this day, and written even into secular history.

but you are you arguing in a public forum with someone in who believes in the same god. I am trying to decide.

a reply to: JackReyes

Actually Jesus did lose his cool on the moneylenders in the temple. although, I can't really blame him

originally posted by: Sigismundus
a reply to: JackReyes

You wrote QUOTE Christians do not partake in warfare. Jesus while on earth, while a Jew, did not help the Jews against Roman subjugation. He never fought. EVER. And he left a model for all of his followers. In fact he said that they were no part of the world ( of wicked humankind)...Jesus did not fight. He did not take sides." UNQUOTE

If what you say is true then riddle me this: If R, Yehoshua was so 'peaceful' then why are so many embarrassing Greek words placed into his mouth in the Canonical council approved Greel Gospels e.g.

Matthew 10:34 / Luke 12:51

'The Bar Enasha ('son of man') was not sent to bring peace upon the land (or Yisro'el) but a Sword; not harmony but division....'

Matthew 11:12 / Luke 16:16

'And from the time John the Baptist began preaching until now, the Kingdom of God/Heaven has endured violent force and violent people now are entering into it...'

Luke 22:35-38

'And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.

Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his outer garment, and buy one....and they said, Rabbi, behold, here are two swords....'

Mark 14:47 / Luke 22:50 / John 18:10 / Matthew 26:51

'When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” [And he answered Thou hast spoken well] Then immediately one of the disciples drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, severing his right ear...."

I could give more evidence within the council approved Greek gospels of the Zealot Tendenz of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean ('Jesus') but this should be enough to show you that the man was far from a pacifist, but closer to what we today would call a revolutionary terrorist who resorted to terrorist activities to gain his end e.g. the so called Cleansing of the Temple which was nothing short of a riot in the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple during a feast...

See John 2:15 / Matthew 21:12 / Mark 11:15 / Luke 19:45

' and ho Iesous made a whip from ropes and chased the money changeres out of the Temple precincts and drove out the sheep and cattle gathered there and scattered the money changers' coins all over the floor, and turned over their tables...
saying, Take these things away from here....'

The fact that all four canonical council approved Greek gospels record the riot in the Temple suggests that there probably was an historical underpinning to the gospel narratives...

Either way, the picture of a nice Rebbe telling harmless little parables to a few friends would hardly have gotten the man strung up on a Roman crux...

Re-visit the texts of the Greek Gospels in a 'close reading' fashion, then see if you can pick up a copy of Reza Aslan's new book 'ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth' available on Amazon.com - In it, Dr Aslan vividly relates what political turbulence existed in early 1st century Palestine before the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome in c. 66 - 73 CE in a novelistic page turning fashion (his sources are listed in the back of the book).

The fact that several of his closest disciples were given Zealot names ("sons of Thunder". 'the Rock', Simon the Zealot (i.e. haQana) etc.) adds credence to Aslan's book...

I don't agree with the OP in what he states or his judgements on anyone, including Christians
Though I would suggest Sigmundus that you have made some serious errors in your understandings and interpretations

I don't think you know what you think you know

Jesus talked of spiritual warfare and oppression

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Christians argue about Christian stuff all the time... whats your point exactly?

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Except for the fact that the Romans hated the Christians for refusing to celebrate their holidays and participating in their wars.

Then how come the Romans were the ones who ''legalized'' it, spread it and make it mandatory official religion of the Roman Empire?

That's why they created Christianity from the Messianic Jewish beliefs, to counter the above issues in your argument.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”Romans 13

That meant that Roman authorities were appointed by God, that's how Messianic beliefs of Jews adapted and become the christian Church of Rome.

Read any history and you knew this. There was no Roman officer or solider who converted to Christianity who could remain in the army. And Christians were viciously persecuted by the Romans and thrown into their Gladiatorial combats, and were eaten by lions in front of shrieking crowds of pagan Romans, because of their stance of strict Christian neutrality. Your argument belies a fundamental lack of knowledge of Christian history.

What you are referring to were Messianic Jews, revolutionists and various enemies of Rome captured as slaves.
They ''Messianics'' were following the law of Moses there is no evidence that they believed in Christ as we know him today. or that those where christians.
That was ''decided'' much later at the 2nd century by Eusebious the first Christian ''historian'' who of course isn't a reliable source as he was writing religious texts and tried to connect the dots of the creation of the new dogma.
He was not writing actual history, none of them did.
Christ is a Greek word
So the Greek term Christians couldn't have been used back then, by those. it was given later by the Romans.

Dr. Akula, that is a good question and one worthy of attention.

Christianity in the first century is not that of the third century. And by the third century it had been apostatized. That is, turned away from the truth. And the Catholic (universal) faith that was set up as the religion of the Empire was not that of Christ or the truth.

I could write actually hundreds of hours upon this topic and share knowledge with you about it. Really. And scripture shows you that it would happen. But I am answering many people on this thread at the same time, and do not have the privilege of doing so right now. Sorry.

Ask me again a little later, or perhaps I will create a thread upon the subject of the falling away from truth, and show from Jesus' own prophesies, especially that of the wheat and the weeds, how it would happen.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: BubbaJoe

He existed long before you or I were born, before the universe existed. His life on earth has had the testimony of four people preserved to this day, and written even into secular history.

but you are you arguing in a public forum with someone in who believes in the same god. I am trying to decide.

Do not decide upon what anything anyone says but God's word.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Christians argue about Christian stuff all the time... whats your point exactly?

Basically, why would anyone follow your sorry assed beliefs?

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: BubbaJoe

He existed long before you or I were born, before the universe existed. His life on earth has had the testimony of four people preserved to this day, and written even into secular history.

but you are you arguing in a public forum with someone in who believes in the same god. I am trying to decide.

Do not decide upon what anything anyone says but God's word.

God's word to me was whatevr.

originally posted by: JackReyes

originally posted by: Dr1Akula

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Dr1Akula

Except for the fact that the Romans hated the Christians for refusing to celebrate their holidays and participating in their wars.

Then how come the Romans were the ones who ''legalized'' it, spread it and make it mandatory official religion of the Roman Empire?

That's why they created Christianity from the Messianic Jewish beliefs, to counter the above issues in your argument.
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”Romans 13

That meant that Roman authorities were appointed by God, that's how Messianic beliefs of Jews adapted and become the christian Church of Rome.

Read any history and you knew this. There was no Roman officer or solider who converted to Christianity who could remain in the army. And Christians were viciously persecuted by the Romans and thrown into their Gladiatorial combats, and were eaten by lions in front of shrieking crowds of pagan Romans, because of their stance of strict Christian neutrality. Your argument belies a fundamental lack of knowledge of Christian history.

What you are referring to were Messianic Jews, revolutionists and various enemies of Rome captured as slaves.
They ''Messianics'' were following the law of Moses there is no evidence that they believed in Christ as we know him today. or that those where christians.
That was ''decided'' much later at the 2nd century by Eusebious the first Christian ''historian'' who of course isn't a reliable source as he was writing religious texts and tried to connect the dots of the creation of the new dogma.
He was not writing actual history, none of them did.
Christ is a Greek word
So the Greek term Christians couldn't have been used back then, by those. it was given later by the Romans.

Dr. Akula, that is a good question and one worthy of attention.

Christianity in the first century is not that of the third century. And by the third century it had been apostatized. That is, turned away from the truth. And the Catholic (universal) faith that was set up as the religion of the Empire was not that of Christ or the truth.

I could write actually hundreds of hours upon this topic and share knowledge with you about it. Really. And scripture shows you that it would happen. But I am answering many people on this thread at the same time, and do not have the privilege of doing so right now. Sorry.

Ask me again a little later, or perhaps I will create a thread upon the subject of the falling away from truth, and show from Jesus' own prophesies, especially that of the wheat and the weeds, how it would happen.

I've actually done a research on early Christianity and I totally agree with you.
Romans created their own version of Jewish Messianic beliefs, that misunderstood, or intentional corrupted the teachings for political purposes, and this form of Christianity still exists today.

And that's what I was arguing about in my first post, not the real meaning of the Gospels.

Anyway nice interesting thread. S&F