GingerBeer
Cool and refreshing with a kick!
- Mar 26, 2017
- 3,511
- 1,348
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see.Yes, I have. I served two years in Vietnam before discovering the truth, and like David, I have killed, cheated, lied, and deserve to go to Hell. For all of these reasons I have thrown myself on the mercy of the Cross and have been accepted.
But I just provided one.When I was drafted, I took a day off work to see if I could find a biblical justification for pacifism. I could not.
Not specifically. I just like to abbreviate; and I don't mind if people do the same to me in return.2PV (is this how people refer to other commenters here?)
Please complete this sentence: When Jesus explains that the provisioning instruction is given to fulfill the prophecy that Jesus be seen a as a transgressor, we need not take Him at his word because
I don't want to "spike the football" but I suggest you will simply not be able to complete this sentence. Can you see how, all other considerations aside, you are denying a clear claim made by Jesus?
2. My explanation first and foremost simply takes Jesus at His word! Unless there is a translation issue, there is no getting around the stark fact that Jesus explains the provisioning instruction as fulfillment of the "transgressor" prophecy. So even if you and others insist this prophecy is restricted to the cross, Jesus clearly thinks otherwise.
To the specifics of what you have posted above: I have pointed out that Jesus's status at the cross (crucified with transgressors) cannot be decoupled from His more general status of being seen as a "transgressor".
So it's not an either/or - Jesus was clearly "numbered with transgressors" in the days leading up to the crucifixion as he increasingly was seen as a threat to the Jewish status quo. I cannot imagine how you will dispute this.
When Jesus says this: "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. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'And He was numbered with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment", He is telling us that ________________________________.
Please no cheating by erasing the word "for" - that key word clearly connects the provisioning instruction to "be seen as a transgressor" prophecy.
It certainly seems to me that you are doing the hokey-pokey around these very particular words.
Yes, it's fine to talk about the particulars of the Isaiah 53 prophecy.
Yes, it's OK to introduce the "past" vs "future" dimension of Jesus' broader statement.
But you must, repeat must, be able to give a coherent ending to the open-ended sentence above to retain any credibility (assuming you are not arguing that there has been a translation error).
I am not sure you are being honest since this answer clearly evades the force of an argument that is, frankly, irrefutable.
Jesus was obviously seen as a "transgressor" before He went to the cross
So you are telling us you are unwilling to complete a well-framed, perfectly coherent request? This speaks volumes. You cannot argue that my request is ill-posed or otherwise legitimate.The whole central thrust of my comments to you has been that Christ's words to his disciples in Luke 22:35-38 are not at all concerned with your odd notion that he appear to those about to arrest him in Gethsemane as a criminal in need of arresting. I don't concede at all what you think is self-evident, so finishing the sentence you've constructed above is, to me, rather silly.
So you are telling us you are unwilling to complete a well-framed, perfectly coherent request? This speaks volumes. You cannot argue that my request is ill-posed or otherwise legitimate.
Jesus says something - He says that the provisioning instruction is given to fulfill a prophecy about Jesus being numbered with transgressors.
You may have all sorts of reasonable arguments, but you must, repeat must, answer a well-posed question in order to participate in proper debate. Evasion is not an option for a serious debater.
Do you deny that Jesus explains the provisioning instruction as fulfilling the transgressor prophecy? How can you possibly answer "yes", since the text reads unambiguously to the effect that He does.
So since Jesus is indeed saying this,
you either accept Him at His word or you don't.
If you do not address in your next response to me, I will place you on ignore.
HC, I don't think you have to know XenForo to know that we can many times discern the meaning of various texts in the Bible using our God-given intelligence (which Steve said is a "dangerous thing").
Granted, we can't discern the meaning of all the biblical text, but we can be aware of our reading and notice that there may be contexts and intertextual considerations to account for.
So, if it all comes by the fiat of the Spirit, then I guess we really don't need apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, wise men, and scribes. Do we?We can only have proper discernment when we have an understanding of the Biblical text and we cannot have an understanding of the Biblical text unless we are filled with the Holy Spirit at which time understanding becomes a revelation from God. Paul understood the problem of leaning on our own understanding and cautioned against it as did Solomon.
Jesus is clearly saying "If my kingdom were like all normal earthly Kingdoms, my followers would be fighting; but mine is a different kind of Kingdom".
And by obvious implication, the citizens of this new Kingdom do not take up arms as would the citizens of a "this-worldly" kingdom.
I do not see how Jesus' teaching in John 18 can be read any other way.
Is it right for a Christian to defend himself OR others if it will result in the attacker/threats death?
I have spoken to multiple people about this question. As the end continues to draw closer things will get worse and worse. There will be warfare, earthquakes, famine, and disease. Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, disobedient to parents, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God.
I do not fear these times, I accept it will happen. My question is how should one who loves God act during these times in a way that is holy and not part of the world or falling short of God's standard.. If someone threatens my life and wishes to commit murder, can I defend my body if it means the attacker dies in the process?
All of Jesus' disciples besides Judas Iscariot (who committed suicide) where killed/murdered and I don't believe any defended themselves.
Scripure says something along the lines of "Those who lose their lives will find it, those who keep their lives will lose it" does this mean by defending yourself you will be punished?
Scripure also says something along the lines of "there is no greater love than laying down your life for another" does this mean you could risk your life defending another Person?
I understand the concept of ending someone's life short when there is a possibility of them having asked for repentance/salvation later on, IF they hadn't been killed.. But still, I wonder how I would act in that situation.
How would you act? Would you let someone kill you or a loved one?
1. Sometimes that 'support' is not unambiguous.1. I point out that Jesus or Paul says or writes statement X, and that X unambiguously supports position Y;
2. I challenge people who disbelieve position Y to explain why X is there in Scripture if Y is in fact false, as the challengers believe;
3. The challengers engage in a complex set of evasions during which they construct all sorts of arguments attacking position Y. Some of these arguments in and of themselves have merit but the relevant point is that the challengers simply refuse to offer an explanation for the existence of statement X.
Thanks for citing the comment number! That made it easy to find.I will not debate further with anyone who will not complete this sentence:
Sorry, I was a bit careless with my language. Under Torah, a Jew was entitled to take revenge. He was often required to take revenge, especially for the murder of a family member. The strongest single theme of SOM (Sermon on the Mount) is the Hedge of Hillel. It's the opposite of brinksmanship. Torah forbids murder, so choose not to harbor anger, to reduce the chances that your anger will escalate to murder. Don't dwell on having women when that increases the risk that you will commit adultery. He was teaching obedience to Torah to Jews, just as Hillel his predecessor did, and as John the Baptist his mentor did. Torah was a contract between Yahweh / Elohim and Israel. It was irrelevant to anyone else.You are not entitled to revenge because the OT has been abrogated by the NT. In Matthew 5 Jesus says about 5 or 6 times, You have heard it said . . . But I say . . ." and with these words He has re-written the contract. Read Hebrews 8:7 "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another." And, also 9:16-17 "In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17 because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living." You will not be able to use that old contract to justify your deeds before the Judge of all creation because it has been overridden. Christ was no doormat. Good luck in front of the Judge.
So, what you are saying is, "How can eleven men be wrong." Don't you know that, "the whole WORLD lies in darkness"? It would appear that common sense is on your side, but don't you see that the common sense and reasoning of men are the problem? It was through the wisdom of men that Christ was hung on the cross.
I have explained this many times. It's not rocket science. If Jesus's followers walk around as an armed group, He, as their clear leader will most certainly be seen as a transgressor.
Please answer post 98.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?