What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

    Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses

  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

    Read The Gospel Online.

Was Jesus a pacifist?

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Donate View
SytheF said:
True. There are plenty of scriptures supporting our right to self defense. We are saved eternally but God doesn't say we're to be careless and hurry to meet him at the hands of the homicidal.
As to the wrathful part, there are also many scriptures that report of God's wrath. Jesus was mad when he confronted the leaders in the temple and called them vipers and of Satan. He wasn't full of joy when he chased after the money changers with a whip that would not have been necessary had he not thought it so and fashioned it himself.
The same Jesus that later talked as you mention about buying a sword. And who's own Disciple had a sword on his person when Jesus was arrested.
With the full knowledge of the all knowing God whom he served.

The argument that Jesus was a pacifist is, by scripture itself, indefensible.
Click to expand...
I agree for the most part but remember Jesus condemned peters use of the sword in that instance. As God does today, some uses of weapons are allowed and other uses are not allowed.
 
godsquadgeek said:
I agree for the most part but remember Jesus condemned peters use of the sword in that instance. As God does today, some uses of weapons are allowed and other uses are not allowed.
Click to expand...
We don't have contemporary scripture to address contemporary weapons. However, war and self defense remain the same. Allowed.

Peter's use of the sword was unbeknownst to Peter interfering with what Jesus knew then as his Father's plan.
That Peter had a sword should not be dismissed.
 
SytheF said:
We don't have contemporary scripture to address contemporary weapons. However, war and self defense remain the same. Allowed.

Peter's use of the sword was unbeknownst to Peter interfering with what Jesus knew then as his Father's plan.
That Peter had a sword should not be dismissed.
Click to expand...
I don't think the scriptures tell us what peters knowledge levels were of the fathers plan. And peter either got a weapon himself, or it was one of the two that were purchased in luke.
 
godsquadgeek said:
I don't think the scriptures tell us what peters knowledge levels were of the fathers plan. And peter either got a weapon himself, or it was one of the two that were purchased in luke.
Click to expand...
Simon was a fisherman.
Why would a fisherman have a sword?
 
SytheF said:
Was Jesus a pacifist?I think anyone who has read the Bible front to back and the Old Testament know that Jesus could never be called a pacifist.
Click to expand...
As God, of course not. While he was on earth, however, he modelled and taught pacifism. Perhaps the argument would be better stated as: Did Jesus want his followers to be pacifists?
 
Free said:
As God, of course not. While he was on earth, however, he modelled and taught pacifism. Perhaps the argument would be better stated as: Did Jesus want his followers to be pacifists?
Click to expand...
He modeled pacifism? A Pacifist is opposed to violence of any kind. And to war.
 
SytheF said:
Great! Then you know Jesus was not a Pacifist.
Click to expand...
As I said, he modelled peace and taught peace. For all intents and purposes, he was a pacifist and wants his followers to be so as well. The early church apparently understood this quite well.
 
Free said:
As I said, he modelled peace and taught peace. For all intents and purposes, he was a pacifist and wants his followers to be so as well. The early church apparently understood this quite well.
Click to expand...
Did they emulate what you say they understood?
 
Free said:
As I said, he modelled peace and taught peace. For all intents and purposes, he was a pacifist and wants his followers to be so as well. The early church apparently understood this quite well.
Click to expand...
the early church made lots of doctrinal errors. Including end times doctrinal errors. So they should not be our example. In colonial america there was only a portion of the church that supported pacifism. The portion that did support pacifism had a higher tax rate because of their lack of service in the military. I believe that should be the case for all pacifists today, they should have a higher tax rate due to their not signing of the selective service. and for honesty sake they should not sign selective service if they are pacifists for that is lying so you don't pay. which is on par with lying on your taxes and such. In fact not signing a selective service is a felony. So most likely if you were a pacifist in high school you lied about your pacifism to save your behind. But you believe Jesus purposefully deceived people into thinking they were numbered with the transgressors. So white lies may be par for the course in your theology.
 
I believe in luke 22:36 that Jesus commanded self protection of his followers. Now normally in most situations you should follow this guideline even when permissible on the mission field. On the mission field is one exception however, I don't think all missionaries should be forced to carry fire arms to protect against cartels and such, but they should have the option religiously speaking to do so. But if one opted out of it, they should not condemn those who don't opt out of personal protection. Just accept that ones ministry may be questioned if they are carrying arms. Arms should not be carried openly in religious meetings accept by appointed guards and servants who are appointed for security reasons. Arms should be concealed as not to distract others from worship for that is the reason why they are there in the first place, to pray, to study and to worship. But one may read luke 22:36 as a command that after Jesus left there would be no more divine protection in a way that there was when Jesus was here. Many times Jesus allowed the disciples to avoid certain pitfalls while slipping away in to the crowds ahead of time, just before the armed guards or armed people approached.
 
godsquadgeek said:
but bearing the sword is a sin is it not? Didn't he command them to sell their coats and buy swords? I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Indeed He did. But he explained the instruction as fulfilling a prophecy that Jesus would be numbered among transgressors. And this makes perfect sense - armed followers make Jesus appear to be a transgressor.
 
godsquadgeek said:
Numbered with the transgressors, if I look at my commentaries and pastor resources most likely relates to the fact he was crucified between thieves.
Click to expand...
Why are the two mutually exclusive?Why can't Jesus be numbered among transgressors both at the Cross as well as through having armed followers?

Remember the ruckus in the Temple. I trust you realize that many, perhaps most, scholars see this as a deliberately provocative act on Jesus's behalf.

At the end of the day, this is simply about taking Jesus at His word. He tells us that the swords are to be procured to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

You, apparently, believe otherwise.
 
Drew said:
Indeed He did. But he explained the instruction as fulfilling a prophecy that Jesus would be numbered among transgressors. And this makes perfect sense - armed followers make Jesus appear to be a transgressor.
Click to expand...
Drew said:
Indeed He did. But he explained the instruction as fulfilling a prophecy that Jesus would be numbered among transgressors. And this makes perfect sense - armed followers make Jesus appear to be a transgressor.
Click to expand...
so you believe Jesus was deceiving others, by appearing to be a transgressor but not be. I rest my case. I do not think Jesus would deceive others and thus sin in that manner. IF white lies are sins, then deceiving others is a sin.
 
Drew said:
Why are the two mutually exclusive?Why can't Jesus be numbered among transgressors both at the Cross as well as through having armed followers?

Remember the ruckus in the Temple. I trust you realize that many, perhaps most, scholars see this as a deliberately provocative act on Jesus's behalf.

At the end of the day, this is simply about taking Jesus at His word. He tells us that the swords are to be procured to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

You, apparently, believe otherwise.
Click to expand...
because one was his fault making him the transgressor, and the other was not his fault, making the people's fault that arrested him.
 
godsquadgeek said:
so you believe Jesus was deceiving others, by appearing to be a transgressor but not be. I rest my case. I do not think Jesus would deceive others and thus sin in that manner. IF white lies are sins, then deceiving others is a sin.
Click to expand...
I believe what Scripture tells us. And I suspect you know that Jesus tells us that the swords are to be gotten to fulfill a prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor. I suppose you could see Jesus's act as "deceptive".

But the text says what it says.

And remember, it is pretty clear that the entire crucifixion event was designed to "trick" Satan. Was this deceptive? You bet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Donations

Total amount
$1,592.00
Goal
$5,080.00
Donate View
Back
Top