Christians and War

a reply to: JackReyes

Jesus said follow me. He didn't say be me, or be a Christian.

a reply to: yuppa

OP is aware of more than yuppa claims.

There is a difference though, between the nation of Israel and the Christian congregation.

At one point the king of Israel represented Jehovah's throne on earth. In 607 B. C. E. the throne was taken away from the Jews, and no Jew since then, until Jesus arrived in kingly power in heaven ruled as king.

The Christian congregation, on the other hand, is not a fleshly nation. It is made up of people out of all nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples. How can it wage earthly warfare, when its adherents come from all nations. It is just as the prophecy about it states:

(Isaiah 2:2-4) . . .In the final part of the days, The mountain of the house of Jehovah Will become firmly established above the top of the mountains, And it will be raised up above the hills, And to it all the nations will stream.  3 And many peoples will go and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, To the house of the God of Jacob. He will instruct us about his ways, And we will walk in his paths.” For law will go out of Zion, And the word of Jehovah out of Jerusalem.  4 He will render judgment among the nations And set matters straight respecting many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares And their spears into pruning shears. Nation will not lift up sword against nation, Nor will they learn war anymore.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: JackReyes

Jesus said follow me. He didn't say be me, or be a Christian.

A Christian of course is a follower of Christ.

And the name Christian itself was given by divine providence:

(Acts 11:26) . . .So for a whole year they assembled with them in the congregation and taught quite a crowd, and it was first in Antioch that the disciples were by divine providence called Christians.

a reply to: JackReyes

answer my question. mormon or jehovah witness. It is related to th e op as to we know where you are coming from. Alot of what you say dont ring true to me and others.

a reply to: JackReyes

That fact that it says that in the canon does carry weight.
But devine providence could have a range of not so
dissimilar definitions. If I'm not mistaken. I've found that
term to be used often for intentioally vague purposes.
Or for lack of a better term if you will?

a reply to: Sigismundus

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....'

You advocate that Jesus was not a pacifist and then you recommend outside literature of the Islam influence to bolster your opinions. That does not work in the real world. Firstly you cherry pick certain verses out of context to twist into your own intent and that does not work either. Let's start with your first example that you cite.

Eth Cepher - Besorah Mattithyahu (Matthew) - 10:34-36
(34) Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
(35) For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
(36) And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Etrh Cepher = Besorah Lucas (Luke) - 12:49-53
(49) I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?
(50) But I have a immersion to be immersed with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!
(51) Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
(52) For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
(53) The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father. the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

The entirety of these scriptures are shown as not with physical revolution against any people but with the revelation that Jesus was ushering in His new covenant to the Nazarene's first and all people secondly which also includes the Muslims of today. That doctrine was the doctrine of the kingdom of God upon this earth and the kingdom of heaven in the celestial realm as He knew it existed. That kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven doctrine was a new concept to the Jews and Jesus knew that it would create theological schism among all people who understood it. This entire immersion was to understand that it was the Holy Spirit of God poured out upon all people. There is nothing embarrassing about the hundreds of Greek manuscripts that verify this such as you have imagined. It would also do you more justice to stay within contextual understanding and not wrap your mind around word play.

Eth Besorah Lucas (Luke) 22:35-38
(35) And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
(36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
(37) For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
(38) And they said, ADONAI, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

As Jesus sent His disciples out to proselytize the Gospel, They were stripped of all needful things to survive such as money or credit or shoes or swords to protect them from beasts and snakes and depended upon the power of the Holy spirit to supply all of their needs. Here Jesus is telling them that this was a lesson for them to depend upon God to supply their needs but due to their weakness they must now use their money and credit and shoes and short swords for survival. Jesus never taught to use force in harming others. Long swords always meant aggression and were not used except in combat. Some used both but peaceful people always used short 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...."

None of the above scriptures of Mark 14:47 / Luke 22:50 / John 18:10 / Matthew 26:51 contain your "[And he answered Thou hast spoken well] in any of the majority manuscripts.

Eth Cepher Besorah Yahuchanon (John) 18:10-11
(10) Then Shim'on Kepha having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malek.
(11) Then said Yahusha unto Kepha, Put up your sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

It is plainly shown here in context that Jesus (Yahusha) did not approve of any violence whatsoever.
I have read and proven to myself that you have twisted this entire subject to suite your mischievous intent to denigrate the Son of God. I don't mind a good honest theological debate but this was not an honest presentation.

a reply to: yuppa

Mormons do vote and take political office (one campaigned for President last election in the United States) and do fight in warfare against each other depending on the nation they are in.

Now your idea that I am a Jehovah's Witness is logical because they refuse to take political office, and kill each other in warfare against each other as do the rest of the members of Christendom. For that reason I do believe they practice the form of true Christianity Jesus left for us to follow.

And I hope to be one day.

But that does not matter. It matters as little as to what I think about anything. But Holy Scripture, now that is something.

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: yuppa

Mormons do vote and take political office (one campaigned for President last election in the United States) and do fight in warfare against each other depending on the nation they are in.

Now your idea that I am a Jehovah's Witness is logical because they refuse to take political office, and kill each other in warfare against each other as do the rest of the members of Christendom. For that reason I do believe they practice the form of true Christianity Jesus left for us to follow.

And I hope to be one day.

But that does not matter. It matters as little as to what I think about anything. But Holy Scripture, now that is something.

Ahh thank you.I n my experiencea with other JW's they have allowwed their church leadership to twist things even worse than the catholic church.OP you may be different and if not thats ok for you. Ive read some of the JW version of the bible and found differences. But seeing as thats where youre coming from were just going to disagree on this point in the OP.
Also I dont dig the organized church and choose to read and study the bible myself without church dictates even considered. Religion is to be a one on one thing and kept private. If they are un knowing of God and Jesus their entire lives they will get a chance to know him before the throne judgement comes down if they didnt believe in anything. Anyway thank you and i wish you well.

a reply to: yuppa

Thank you as well. I also wish you well.

Look at what just happened in Paris...smh...What type of world would it be if everone followed Christ's example, as do Jehovah's Witnesses. Atrocities such as these would never happen.

Terrorism would be no more. War would be no more.

originally posted by: JackReyes

Surely that would make more sense, but for the fact that the main point of the whole the jesus story, involved torture and human sacrifice? The syrupy words seem to lose a little gloss.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I realize what he suffered, and went through unjustly, at the hands of evil men, and some just doing their job evades the understanding of many. But as you can see, not everyone.

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I realize what he suffered, and went through unjustly, at the hands of evil men, and some just doing their job evades the understanding of many. But as you can see, not everyone.

Afaik, it was god who needed him tortured and sacrificed. So that he could forgive us, for something about a snake and a piece of fruit? How could anyone find that uplifting, or take anything spoken about love seriously from either one? They both condone torture and human sacrifice.

a reply to: Seede

Seede - you wrote QUOTE You advocate that Jesus was not a pacifist and then you recommend outside literature of the Islam influence to bolster your opinions. That does not work in the real world. Firstly you cherry pick certain verses out of context to twist into your own intent and that does not work either. Let's start with your first example that you cite.
UNQUOTE

I'm not sure where you got the Islamic slant to what I had to say earlier; the fact remains that all four canonical council approved Greek Gospels have 'ho Iesous' surrounded at his arrest by his own armed men who sliced of an ear of the slave of the high priest. The evidence I have cited is from the Greek MSS of the council approved Gospels, nothing 'outside' in this instance (normally I would add the Gospel of Thomas and the War Scroll 1 QM and Josephus' writings when I make my points).

'Ho Iesous' could not have been a pacifist if he armed his disciples with swords and caused a riot in the Ciourt of the Gentiles in the Temple ('the so-called Cleansing') for which he was strung up as a seditionist and executed by Crucifixion, which is ONLY reserved for armed combatants against the state of Rome.

He also named a number of his disciples with Zealot nicknames such as ROCK, SONS OF THUNDER and ZEALOT (haQana) which adds fuel to the fire when he said 'Do you think the son of man was swent to bring Peace upon the Land? Not Peace, I tell you but the sword..."

You have to read a little between the lines in the Greek council approved gospels since their contents hav e been somewhat sanitized by the writers who did not themselves wish to be condemned as seditionists ....

Clear as mud??

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

No, it was Satan who challenged God. He never once challenged God's power. Something to think about.

And if an all-powerful being intervined and got rid of all opposition, what would you, or perhaps, others, conclude about him?

Letting man rule himself, even murder his only-begotten at the behest of Satan, does not escape our notice.

Maybe yours, but perhaps you cannot see.

originally posted by: JackReyes
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

No, it was Satan who challenged God. He never once challenged God's power. Something to think about.

Giving it some thought...so because Satan challenges god, he finds the best solution to this is to let his son be nailed to a lump of wood.

Well, that's altogether different then..

originally posted by: JackReyesAnd if an all-powerful being intervined and got rid of all opposition, what would you, or perhaps, others, conclude about him?

That he existed.

originally posted by: JackReyesLetting man rule himself, even murder his only-begotten at the behest of Satan, does not escape our notice.

Maybe yours, but perhaps you cannot see.

What you yourself might be overlooking here is the likelihood that god lets man rule himself for far more obvious reasons.

Just a thought.

ps. As to the original question...wasn't jesus being nailed to a wooden cross necessary for god to find forgiveness for humanity?Didn't jesus go along with this willingly? If god didn't require it, then it was for nothing?

Therefore both of them happy with torture and human sacrifice (regardless of excuses)?

originally posted by: Sigismundus


He also named a number of his disciples with Zealot nicknames such as ROCK, SONS OF THUNDER and ZEALOT (haQana) which adds fuel to the fire when he said 'Do you think the son of man was swent to bring Peace upon the Land? Not Peace, I tell you but the sword..."

So Jesus ran around with a sword???

I think you dont think

The bible is a spiritual book, why do you insinuate the Man of peace was violent, its insane. Jesus hurt no one but you take one verse and tell everyone its defines the book.
You tell us we have to read between the lines, Why? To fabricate stuff like you have

Jesus didn't come to bring peace between mankind, never said He would. He brought peace between mankind and God, he bought about a new kind of justice.

Clear as mud??

a reply to: Raggedyman

revelation explains it all. an ultimate war is foreordained and there are people who think that the more wars we wage, the sooner that ultimate war will commence. even if it doesnt work, they rationalize it as "doing gods work" whether or not god actually comes down to play or not. totalitarianism is the name of the game, and how do you achieve total control? by wiping out the opposition.

its really not that complicated.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

revelation explains it all. an ultimate war is foreordained and there are people who think that the more wars we wage, the sooner that ultimate war will commence. even if it doesnt work, they rationalize it as "doing gods work" whether or not god actually comes down to play or not. totalitarianism is the name of the game, and how do you achieve total control? by wiping out the opposition.

its really not that complicated.

you do know that there are wars where Christians are not involved, secular wars, political based wars, territorial wars and wars about revenge
Some people may indeed think as you suggest, I have never met one of them, who are they?

Revelation does not explain what you say it explains at all

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Raggedyman

revelation explains it all. an ultimate war is foreordained and there are people who think that the more wars we wage, the sooner that ultimate war will commence. even if it doesnt work, they rationalize it as "doing gods work" whether or not god actually comes down to play or not. totalitarianism is the name of the game, and how do you achieve total control? by wiping out the opposition.

its really not that complicated.

you do know that there are wars where Christians are not involved, secular wars, political based wars, territorial wars and wars about revenge
Some people may indeed think as you suggest, I have never met one of them, who are they?

Revelation does not explain what you say it explains at all

Over two thirds of the American military are Christian. Why do you think that is?