Was Jesus a pacifist?

[Jim Parker]

Since the rise of dispensationalism, biblical literalness has taken a turn for the better.

I'd say it has taken a turn for the worse. The 19th cnetury new wind of doctrine called dispsnsationalism also teaches that the Gifts of the Spirit are no longer active. The Holy Spirit has retired.
And the Bible should only be taken literally when the context so requires.

Early church did not believe in the rapture.

That's because the scriptures do not teach the Rapture doctrine which John Darby made up.
Scripture teaches that Jesus is coming ONCE more, not twice (once secretly) and when He comes for the ONE and only judgment, the dead in Christ will rise and those of us who are still alive will rise to meet Him in the air and escort Him in His triumphal return.

They believed also in prayers for the dead.

Dead? What dead. Nobody's dead to God (Mar 12:27) and nothing is impossible for God. (Luk 1:37)
It is amazing how people think we are so much smarter today than the people who were taught by the apostles and their disciples. In fact, we're so smart today that we can change any doctrine that has stood since the day of Pentecost if we see that it's wrong. And we would know because we're so much smarter than all the apostles and all their disciples.
Actually, the average American believer couldn't hold a candle to the brilliance of the early church theologians.

 

[Jim Parker]

What was a misquote? You clearly stated that you think Christians can use violence in the face of persecution. Are you now saying you didn't understand what you said?

No. I'm saying you didn't understand what I said.

 

[Drew]

That would be hamburger deception, for the sketch of a lie. I am unsure if you fully grasp what sin is.

I have an exceedingly simply task for you. All I am asking you is this: type out the verse that follows this verse from Luke 22:

But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one...

If you simply write out the verse that follows the one above, I promise I will not badger you anymore in this thread about Luke 22:36-37.

 

[Jim Parker]

I have an exceedingly simply task for you. All I am asking you is this: type out the verse that follows this verse from Luke 22:

But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one...

If you simply write out the verse that follows the one above, I promise I will not badger you anymore in this thread about Luke 22:36-37.

36 He said to them, "But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. 37 For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, 'And he was reckoned with transgressors'; for what is written about me has its fulfillment."

What was written bout Jesus was fulfilled when He was crucified between two thieves. (transgressors)
It was also fulfilled by His practice to prefer the company of and eat with tax collectors and sinners rather than the "righteous" scribes, Pharisees and Sadducee. (transgressors)

Isa 53:12
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

None of that says anything about Jesus being a pacifist.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I shouldn't bother to read threads. Now I have to watch this one. Lots of TOS violations (to the man arguments). :/ ~sigh

That said, there are lots of great posts totally in line with reasoned debate and they follow the TOS.

(this is probably a hint to reread your posts and check if you're posting with gentleness and respect 1 Peter 3:15)

 

[godsquadgeek]

I have an exceedingly simply task for you. All I am asking you is this: type out the verse that follows this verse from Luke 22:

But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one...

If you simply write out the verse that follows the one above, I promise I will not badger you anymore in this thread about Luke 22:36-37.

I could literally memorize that verse and it would not make it say what you want it to say. Your interpretation makes jesus deceptive. And I don't believe a righteous man can be deceptive:

Proverbs 11:18 New King James Version (NKJV)
18 The wicked man does deceptive work,
But he who sows righteousness will have a sure reward.

 

[godsquadgeek]

I have an exceedingly simply task for you. All I am asking you is this: type out the verse that follows this verse from Luke 22:

But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one...

If you simply write out the verse that follows the one above, I promise I will not badger you anymore in this thread about Luke 22:36-37.

Your interpretation makes Jesus deceive in order to fulfill a prophecy. In essence creating a dilemna of a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

So because of your experience, you think everyone should be like you.
How about the women who experienced gang raping as a method of warfare?
How about the people who are subjected to genocide because they are the wrong tribe or have the wrong politics or are the wrong color?
Because you have been blessed with a peaceful life does not mean that everyone else will have the same.

So what happened to the Christians who were beheaded and their women raped and sold as sex slaves by Muslim Jihadists?
Why weren't they protected by the blood of Jesus?
When a Moro in the Philippines murders a Christian, why isn't he protected by the3 blood of Jesus.
You are ignoring all the evidence to the contrary of your unchallenged pacifism.
It's easy to be a pacifist when ho one ever attempts to do you harm.
But that's not the entirety of the real world.
It's just the pretty bubble that you live in.

What are you saying?
You don't believe Jesus protects you?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

If I love others as myself would I permit them to be raped and murdered by criminals if I could do something to stop them?
Would You?
Should we disband the military and police because they use violence against violent criminals?

I've already addressed this.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The term "early church" is used to refer to the church of the first few centuries not the 17th century.

misread
I was answering the statement on the colonial church
read it again and read what's there, not just what you want it to say

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

No crime in your county?so why hide your name if you truly believe that? Please I lived in a smaller county in.my youth aND murders happened then,rape is often by someone you date,or a friend. My sister waa raped by her bf,and a family friend.seldom ,or rare is it when a rapist is a stranger.

Please back up your claim of 0 crime by postimg the county data.

It doesn't matter the crime rate
whatever is out there, it never reaches me

 

[Drew]

Your interpretation makes Jesus deceive in order to fulfill a prophecy. In essence creating a dilemna of a self fulfilling prophecy.

All I am asking you to do is set your fingers to the keyboard and type out a verse.

But you refuse, and everyone knows why.

The reason is this: to actually publicly acknowledge Jesus's words utterly torpedos your position.

 

[Drew]

I could literally memorize that verse and it would not make it say what you want it to say.

The real problem you face is that the verse is unambiguous - there is only possible interpretation. Your position is akin to someone taking this sentence:

I am going to buy sunglasses for I want to protect my eyes.

...and claiming that the motive is something other than eye-protection! The sentence itself, though, gives one and only one possible motive.

 

[Drew]

I could literally memorize that verse and it would not make it say what you want it to say. Your interpretation makes jesus deceptive. And I don't believe a righteous man can be deceptive

Why are you not dealing with an argument that I repeatedly asked you about - the ruckus in the temple.

If someone came into a church in starting flipping over table and use a kind of whip made of rope to chase people away, would that be considered sin?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

But the answer is clearly "yes". So you have to explain to us why would Jesus would engage in such seemingly sinful behaviour if "a righteous man does not sin".

 

[Drew]

At the end of the day, I think the whole thing around Luke 22 centres on respect for the authority of Scripture. It cannot be denied: Jesus tells us the reason for the swords.

The language is clear, and it would, of course, make sense that if Jesus were considered to be the leader of an armed band, he would be perceived to be a transgressor.

Just as the prophecy says.

We may close our eyes all we want and wish as hard as we want that the reason for the swords was self-defence. But that doesn't change what the text actually says!

 

[godsquadgeek]

All I am asking you to do is set your fingers to the keyboard and type out a verse.

But you refuse, and everyone knows why.

The reason is this: to actually publicly acknowledge Jesus's words utterly torpedos your position.

lol, your the one who believes Jesus can make bold faced lies.

 

[godsquadgeek]

At the end of the day, I think the whole thing around Luke 22 centres on respect for the authority of Scripture. It cannot be denied: Jesus tells us the reason for the swords.

The language is clear, and it would, of course, make sense that if Jesus were considered to be the leader of an armed band, he would be perceived to be a transgressor.

Just as the prophecy says.

We may close our eyes all we want and wish as hard as we want that the reason for the swords was self-defence. But that doesn't change what the text actually says!

but you literally make Jesus a transgressor with your interpretations. Thats heresy.

 

[Drew]

lol, your the one who believes Jesus can make bold faced lies.

What about the temple?

Please stop evading a perfectly legitimate question - others know you are doing this as well, even if they agree with you about the question of Jesus being a pacifist.

Is it sinful to go into a church and flip over furniture and threateningly drive people out with a kind of whip?

I will keep asking this question till you answer, or you are rescued by thread closure.

 

[chessman]

you are rescued by thread closure.

Mind if I borrow that?

 

[godsquadgeek]

Why are you not dealing with an argument that I repeatedly asked you about - the ruckus in the temple.

If someone came into a church in starting flipping over table and use a kind of whip made of rope to chase people away, would that be considered sin?

Simple yes or no will suffice.

But the answer is clearly "yes". So you have to explain to us why would Jesus would engage in such seemingly sinful behaviour if "a righteous man does not sin".

I proved your theory wrong in one sentence. Yet you refuse to even comment on it. I said that if Jesus deceived people into believing a lie (that He was a transgressor), that this would constitute a self fulfilling prophecy. Here is the definition of a self fulfilling prophecy. Say for example I prophecy that I am going to eat a peanut butter sandwich at this time tomorrow. Then in the morning I make a breakfast that includes a peanut butter sandwich, I am not a prophet at that point. Because I self fulfilled the prophecy. what is the difference between myself making a pb&j and what Jesus is doing according you your theory? He is deceiving a group of people regarding a half truth ( or lie), in order to self fulfill a prophecy. Isn't Jesus at that point guilty of committing a fallacy of a self fulfilling prophecy? I await your response.
Like I have said numerous times before, my interpretation does not make Jesus a deceiver, nor a liar. It simply mentions that the fulfillment of the prophecy was to be fulfilled in near times, or soon. Not right then, but later that day or next day. (like the theologian I quoted: "fulfilled when Jesus was crucified between two thieves" . That would make the appearance that He was a sinner, even though literally He was not. In conclusion, your theory does not make Jesus appear to be anything, it makes Jesus a sinner. Deceiving people with a lie, to self fulfill a prophecy is a sin. Again, I await your response.