We are not to hurt anyone for any reason.

[GenemZ]

Yes I suppose it does, if it applies to anyone at all.

To anyone at all?

Saying that, reveals that you do not understand the reality that passage speaks of. It most definitely applies to the unbeliever.... who can not be distinguished from the habitually carnal believer.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (New International Version)

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."​

but what we see more often than not is someone using it as a way of saying they are right and if you had the spirit you would understand.

You keep wishing to wiggle out of the fact that it must apply to some. And, will apply to some. And, they will be easy to discern by the words they express to those who can know.

Sounds like you are speaking in your own defense in a way, perhaps?

I do not think that is the intent of the verse and many who claim to understand actually do not and then they spout nonsense and use this verse to cover themselves.

The Truth will appear to be nonsense in that case.

Titus 2:13 (New International Version)
"while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ."

​

Do you agree with what that says?

Titus 2:13 (Amplified Bible)
Awaiting and looking for the [fulfillment, the realization of our] blessed hope, even the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed One)"

The one you are trying to defend? Does not agree. Its nonsense to him.

He can not grasp that Jesus was the unique God/man... being both fully human, and Deity - simultaneously. To be fully humanity, Deity must allow for his humanity to function as humanity. Before he went to the Cross God had to allow for his humanity to only function as humanity in ability and strength. Jesus had to function as a man. If he did not? He would have been disqualified to die as our substitute on the Cross.

In a sense, Christ is his own best friend. He gets along with himself... perfectly!



​

​

 

[WarEagle]

No, he wasn't.

The Bible says that Jesus is God. Jesus taught that He is God. Why should I believe your word over God's?

Consider the following: At first glance, Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one” might not seem to be a claim to be God. However, look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement, “We are not stoning you for any of these, replied the Jews, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood Jesus’ statement to be a claim to be God. In the following verses, Jesus never corrects the Jews by saying, “I did not claim to be God.” That indicates Jesus was truly saying He was God by declaring, “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30). John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" Again, in response, the Jews take up stones in an attempt to stone Jesus (John 8:59). Why would the Jews want to stone Jesus if He hadn’t said something they believed to be blasphemous, namely, a claim to be God?

To this, we can also add Jesus' words to the Pharisees in John 8:51-59, in which Jesus tells them at least three times that He is God.

John 1:1 says that “the Word was God.” John 1:14 says that “the Word became flesh.” This clearly indicates that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, "...Be shepherds of the church of God, which He bought with His own blood." Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. Acts 20:28 declares that God purchased the church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!



Thomas the disciple declared concerning Jesus, “Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Jesus does not correct him. Titus 2:13 encourages us to wait for the coming of our God and Savior - Jesus Christ (see also 2 Peter 1:1). In Hebrews 1:8, the Father declares of Jesus, "But about the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever, and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom."

In Revelation, an angel instructed the Apostle John to only worship God (Revelation 19:10). Several times in Scripture Jesus receives worship (Matthew 2:11; 14:33; 28:9,17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38). He never rebukes people for worshiping Him. If Jesus were not God, He would have told people to not worship Him, just as the angel in Revelation had. There are many other verses and passages of Scripture that argue for Jesus’ deity.

The most important reason that Jesus has to be God is that if He is not God, His death would not have been sufficient to pay the penalty for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). Only God could pay such an infinite penalty. Only God could take on the sins of the world (2 Corinthians 5:21), die, and be resurrected - proving His victory over sin and death

And even more important.....the real God is not a murderous monster as many of the Jewish cultural myths portray him.

I agree. That's why I stick to the Bible, which doesn't portray Him as a murderous monster at all.


Exactly where in scripture do we see Jesus being a pacifist?

How about, "Offer no resistance to the evil man."[/uote]

I agree. We shouldn't seek revenge. Now, back to my question: where in the Bible do we see any examples of Jesus being a pacifist?

He said he was King of the Jews

Actually, Jesus didn't say that He is King of the Jews. The Roman soldiers said He was king of the Jews. Pilate said He was king of the Jews. Agrippa said He is king of the Jews.

Obviously HE was helpless to overthrow the Romans, so he must have expected God to intervene as the prophets had predicted.

If Jesus believed He was supposed to overthrow the Romans, then how do you explain the fact that He stood before Pilate in John 18 and told him that He wasn't here to overthrow anybody? According to your logic, He must have been lying.

No. That's just another really far-fetched excuse.

No, that's what the Bible says.

Truth is, Jesus was an honest man

How can He be an honest man when He lied (according to you) about being God?

believed that God had forsaken him for some unknown reason

The only reference the Bible gives to Jesus being forsaken is a quote of Jesus' of an OT passage.

The Bible is a whitewashed version of Paul's history, revised by the early followers of Paul to reflect Paul's Gospel.

How can it be a whitewashed version of Paul's history when the vast majority of it was written before Paul even lived?

He did not know it was a lie. He believed it.

But isn't a man who falsely believes himself to be God insane?

He never claimed to be God

Actually, the Bible records Him claiming to be God on many occasions.

That Messiah WAS NOT supposed to be God and Jesus knew that well.

Where does the Bible say that the Messiah was not supposed to be God?

It was Paul that corrupted the memory and rewrote the story.

How can Paul have re-written the story when the Gospels are generally dated after Paul's letters?


How can one re-write something that hasn't been written yet?

Paul preached and wrote beginning in the 40s and 50s AD. The Gospels were written by converts to his new religion

Actually, they were written by Jesus' disciples.

Now I know that this is all very new and shocking to you, but just think of it this way......

No, not really. It's not really any different than what the Bible says will happen in the last days.

What Paul and Luke sold was swamp land in Florida.

And what you're selling comes from the south end of a northbound bull.

I wonder, has anybody else noticed that this guy hasn't given any evidence to back up his claim or shown why any of the solid, Biblical answers he's received are wrong? Or is it just me?

 

[GenemZ]

Quote:He never claimed to be God, he thought he was the Messiah that the prophets predicted. That Messiah WAS NOT supposed to be God and Jesus knew that well.

He did know perfectly well who he was...

Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

He will be called "Everlasting Father," because the born again believers during the Millennium will recognize that to hear Him speak, is to hear the Father speak.

Why will they call Him... "Mighty God?"

That would be a total blasphemy if he were not.

To allow for it?

Will he be deceived then, too?





Chew on that one for a while....

.


.


​

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

Hi 2theBone,

You are making an awful lot of accusations about the validity of the NT, if you actually wanted anyone to take you seriously you should provide evidence, otherwise you'll just end up in the tired old da vinci code barrel.

Christ did more than just teach, He gave a walking breathing example of how we are to be. If you are only following His teachings then you are missing out on the greatest things that He did for us. I said 'following His teachings, but obviously you aren't following them all since it is apparent that you don't believe in the resurrection account.
If you study the OT as much as you are the NT you'll probably pass them off as fakes also. There are several reference to Jesus in the OT, as well as His deity and His purpose. I get the feeling as if you are still digging because you aren't satisfied with whats there. Faith is a funny thing sometimes.

Forgive me for being blunt, no offense intended.

 

[GenemZ]

Faith is a funny thing sometimes.

Faith is a gift. Like...


A famous artist.


Did he simply put his mind to it to be an artist?


Or, was it a gift?

Ephesians 2:8 (New American Standard Bible)
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."




.
​

 

[GenemZ]

Genez, your repeating of nonsense and pretending it is wisdom is the rankest folly.

Here's the truth: Everything they taught you in Bible study is wrong.

This is becoming more clear every day as the Dead Sea Scrolls bring the truth about Paul to light.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were hidden from the church and the church had no opportunity to rewrite them as was done with the Gospels.

The NT is revisionist history and the Dead Sea Scrolls prove it.

Give it up and argue something else, you are not even close to knowing what you're talking about on this issue.

Get some real training from a good pastor before you start playing with the Bible. That's good advice.....take it.
​

What's good for the goose...

 

[2theBone]

"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

He will be called "Everlasting Father," because the born again believers during the Millennium will recognize that to hear Him speak, is to hear the Father speak.

Why will they call Him... "Mighty God?"
​

Why do you arbitrarily pull this verse out of context and claim it was talking about Jesus?

The verse refers to a Messiah figure of Isaiah's time, nothing more, nothing less. To try to pretend it refers to Jesus is fantasy.

 

[2theBone]

War Eagle said:

Exactly where in scripture do we see Jesus being a pacifist?

Bonz answers in maroon font.

How about, "Offer no resistance to the evil man."

I agree. We shouldn't seek revenge. Now, back to my question: where in the Bible do we see any examples of Jesus being a pacifist?

How about, "Offer no resistance to the evil man."

(If I have to repeat everything, this is going to take a long time.)



The Bible says that Jesus is God. Jesus taught that He is God. Why should I believe your word over God's?

I'll try to answer all your questions by addressing this in depth.

The Bible is words of men, nothing more. It proves nothing. Like all other historical literature, it can be studied and conclusions can be drawn from the information.

In the case of Paul's invented religion, Christianity, those parts of the Bible (NT) were written primarily by Paul's converts and tailored to fit Paul's heretical preaching (which portrayed Jesus as God and the Son of God and claimed that his death paid the cost for all sin).

This new religion invented by Paul was immediately popular because it allowed sin (which was then totally redeemed by the death of the Jesus-God).

Paul's teachings said basically, "We don't want you to sin, but if you do--oh well."

The converts quickly latched on to the "Oh well," and sin abounded, just as it does in "Christianity" of today. The perfect religion--you can sin and still get your heavenly reward.

You can sin and still get your heavenly reward.

When you sit down and think about this for a minute, the sheer dishonesty of such a religion leaps out in your face (but of course, the adherents of such a religion try to stay in denial and continue to benefit from having it both ways--sin and heaven).

Paul did his inventing, preaching and writing in the 40s and 50s CE and the Gospels were written by his converts in the 60s through the 90s (the John portion is very different and may have come later) so they agreed well with Paul's theology but for the most part have nothing to do with anything Jesus said.

To make it worse, those parts of the Bible were edited and re-edited by the early church to conform them to evolving church doctrine.

The remaining disciples of Jesus, who were led by James the brother of Jesus, tried to continue with the true teachings of Jesus, but since Jesus taught "Go and sin no more," instead of , "If you sin, oh well," they could not compete with the new religion of Paul.

So, now you can easily see why you can't use the Bible as "God's Word." Most of the NT was edited and engineered to fit Paul's new religion of sin.

This is all fairly new information, since the results of in-depth studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have taken time and the conclusions are just being revealed by scholars like Unterbrink, Maccoby and Eisenman.

A wealth of information is available by simply Googling James Paul Dead Sea Scrolls and variations thereof . The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

I understand your reluctance to accept this new information. Paul's religion of sin is extremely popular (understandably) and it is painful to embrace information that shows it up as false (especially if you have sincerely believed it all your life).

The only question is: do you want to truly examine the new information or do you want to deny and ignore it?

I think this covers all your questions, but if you have any more specific questions, just ask.

 

[2theBone]

Hi 2theBone,

You are making an awful lot of accusations about the validity of the NT, if you actually wanted anyone to take you seriously you should provide evidence, otherwise you'll just end up in the tired old da vinci code barrel.

Christ did more than just teach, He gave a walking breathing example of how we are to be. If you are only following His teachings then you are missing out on the greatest things that He did for us. I said 'following His teachings, but obviously you aren't following them all since it is apparent that you don't believe in the resurrection account.
If you study the OT as much as you are the NT you'll probably pass them off as fakes also. There are several reference to Jesus in the OT, as well as His deity and His purpose. I get the feeling as if you are still digging because you aren't satisfied with whats there. Faith is a funny thing sometimes.

Forgive me for being blunt, no offense intended.

Thanks for your response. I'm not going to spam in a bunch of quotes from scholars (it never proves anything anyway, because people just dismiss any scholar that disagrees with tradition) but please refer to my response to War Eagle above for some sources of study if you choose to be open to learn.

 

[Soul Searcher]

To anyone at all?

Yep to anyone at all, although I know most Chirstians will probably never even consider this it is possibel that Paul knew some of his writings were nonsense as written and used this to cover himself just like I see so many Christains use it today.

Saying that, reveals that you do not understand the reality that passage speaks of. It most definitely applies to the unbeliever.... who can not be distinguished from the habitually carnal believer.

No I do understand the meaning of it, and it is true some things of the spirit that may very well be true do appear to be nonsense to some people. Yet this verse is used often to cover up nonsense. Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are spouting a bunch of nonsense but the usage of this verse is often did so in such a way so much so that using it is pretty much pointless any more.

You keep wishing to wiggle out of the fact that it must apply to some. And, will apply to some. And, they will be easy to discern by the words they express to those who can know.

No, not trying to wiggle out of anything, I guess the point I was making or trying to is people use this verse all the time and in doing so they always seem to think that 1 they have the spirit, 2 they understand and are relaying it correctly and 3 the other person does nto have the spirit, all of which are nothing but assumptions on thier part and lack any real meat and quite often it is they who do not understand and thus no one they tell is able to understand based on thier words.

Sounds like you are speaking in your own defense in a way, perhaps?

Not at all, though I have had that verse thrown at me as well, no need to defend myself against such things as it is just a lame round about way of being told that I am going to hell which I do not believe in, in the first place. I just offer a little prayer that some day those people will see the light as well.

The Truth will appear to be nonsense in that case.

In some cases yes the truth does appear to be nonsense but sometimes the one who is sure they have the truth has the nonsense instead.

Do you agree with what that says?

I'm not sure what you mean by the question... I have no reason to think they were not waiting for him. Or are you trying to ask if I believe in Jesus? If so then yes I believe in Jesus, I do not believe that Jesus was God if he were then that would mean that God is dead and Jesus could not have risen. I do believe that Jesus was the son just as he said he was and more importantly I believe in his teachings.

The one you are trying to defend? Does not agree. Its nonsense to him.
​

​

​

​

It was more the usage of the verse that I was responding to, but I also think that far to many people think it is all about waiting for Jesus and the promised land and fail to see what Jesus was really teaching.​

​

He can not grasp that Jesus was the unique God/man... being both fully human, and Deity - simultaneously. To be fully humanity, Deity must allow for his humanity to function as humanity. Before he went to the Cross God had to allow for his humanity to only function as humanity in ability and strength. Jesus had to function as a man. If he did not? He would have been disqualified to die as our substitute on the Cross.



​

The God/Man think always gives me pause, I know that the documents were in Greek, that they were handled by the Romans and both the Greek and the Romans had a long history of God/Man stories. Many assume that every word is true without giving any critical thought to what is actually written.​

The simple fact is if Jesus truly was God then much of the NT does not make any sense. Then we have the case where he died and in that case if he were God then God would be dead, the theogoly when boiled down tells us that God manipulated man so that he could commit assisted sucicide at the hand of man so that he could forgive some men for the sins of thier first ancestors. There are many convoluted explainations but they all seem to arise from first assuming that every word must be true then many scriptures are twisted and reinterpretted as to not contradict the others and without using any real critical thought in the process and not even considering the thought that hey this verse or this thought may simply be wrong. If God, the sustainer of Life were to die, would not all life be dead as well? Would a dead God be able to rise? If God did not die then isn't it a lie to say that Jesus was God? Add to that the fact that theology tells us that it is imperative that one believe that Jesus is God one must ask the question as to why he did not tell the multitudes in his sermon on the mount, surely if believing this was so important he would have at least mentioned it rather than giving them a big sermon on how to be meek and kind to others.​

​

​

 

[Giver]

War Eagle said:

Exactly where in scripture do we see Jesus being a pacifist?

Bonz answers in maroon font.

How about, "Offer no resistance to the evil man."

I agree. We shouldn't seek revenge. Now, back to my question: where in the Bible do we see any examples of Jesus being a pacifist?

How about, "Offer no resistance to the evil man."

(If I have to repeat everything, this is going to take a long time.)



The Bible says that Jesus is God. Jesus taught that He is God. Why should I believe your word over God's?

I'll try to answer all your questions by addressing this in depth.

The Bible is words of men, nothing more. It proves nothing. Like all other historical literature, it can be studied and conclusions can be drawn from the information.

In the case of Paul's invented religion, Christianity, those parts of the Bible (NT) were written primarily by Paul's converts and tailored to fit Paul's heretical preaching (which portrayed Jesus as God and the Son of God and claimed that his death paid the cost for all sin).

This new religion invented by Paul was immediately popular because it allowed sin (which was then totally redeemed by the death of the Jesus-God).

Paul's teachings said basically, "We don't want you to sin, but if you do--oh well."

The converts quickly latched on to the "Oh well," and sin abounded, just as it does in "Christianity" of today. The perfect religion--you can sin and still get your heavenly reward.

You can sin and still get your heavenly reward.

When you sit down and think about this for a minute, the sheer dishonesty of such a religion leaps out in your face (but of course, the adherents of such a religion try to stay in denial and continue to benefit from having it both ways--sin and heaven).

Paul did his inventing, preaching and writing in the 40s and 50s CE and the Gospels were written by his converts in the 60s through the 90s (the John portion is very different and may have come later) so they agreed well with Paul's theology but for the most part have nothing to do with anything Jesus said.

To make it worse, those parts of the Bible were edited and re-edited by the early church to conform them to evolving church doctrine.

The remaining disciples of Jesus, who were led by James the brother of Jesus, tried to continue with the true teachings of Jesus, but since Jesus taught "Go and sin no more," instead of , "If you sin, oh well," they could not compete with the new religion of Paul.

So, now you can easily see why you can't use the Bible as "God's Word." Most of the NT was edited and engineered to fit Paul's new religion of sin.

This is all fairly new information, since the results of in-depth studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls have taken time and the conclusions are just being revealed by scholars like Unterbrink, Maccoby and Eisenman.

A wealth of information is available by simply Googling James Paul Dead Sea Scrolls and variations thereof . The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

I understand your reluctance to accept this new information. Paul's religion of sin is extremely popular (understandably) and it is painful to embrace information that shows it up as false (especially if you have sincerely believed it all your life).

The only question is: do you want to truly examine the new information or do you want to deny and ignore it?

I think this covers all your questions, but if you have any more specific questions, just ask.

You are so misled that normally I would not even address someone with your beliefs. But because this is my thread and you are way off the subject, I have made an exception.

Jesus personally told me that he is God; the Christian Bible is his written Word. Now you go ahead and believe whatever the so-called scholars tell you, but I will trust my soul to God. All I have to say to you is: I am feeling sorry for you. Now please start your own thread, you might find someone to read it, but it sure will not be me.

 

[Romanseight2005]

The issue of this thread is: God has told his people not to Harm/hurt anyone one for any reason. Jesus told us love our enemies.

As for protecting our property he told us not to try and get it back if stolen. He told us to be meek. He called us his sheep.

A Christian using a weapon against another human is a wolf disguised as a sheep.

I understand about defending property. But are you then saying that your family is your property? I see my family as a gift that my Lord has given me the duty to care for and protect.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Genez, there is something that has been bothering me here. If you think it's God's will that a person who came to harm your family be killed by you and sent to eternal damnation, then why would it not also be God's will for your family to be shot as well. Why do you feel the need to intervene and protect your family? By your logic, God would not let them die unless He wanted them to, right? It seems like a huge contradiction, and frankly quite convenient. You do what seems right for your family, and don't have to take responsibility for your actions on the perpetrator.

 

[Giver]

I understand about defending property. But are you then saying that your family is your property? I see my family as a gift that my Lord has given me the duty to care for and protect.

Jesus is our God. He is our boss. We are to do what he tells us to do. He told us to love our enemies. Not to offer the evil person any resistance. He also told us that to love him is to hear his Word and live that Word. We need to love him to have the Father love us.

(Matthew 16:24-25) “Then Jesus said to his disciples, ‘If anyone wants to be a follower of mine, let him renounce himself and take up his cross and follow me. For anyone who wants to save his life will lose it; but anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

(Matthew 10:37-39) “Anyone who prefers father or mother to me is not worthy of me. Anyone who prefers son or daughter to me is not worthy of me. Anyone who does not take his cross and follow in my footsteps is not worthy of me. Anyone who finds his life will lose it; anyone who loses his life for my sake will find it.”

 

[Romanseight2005]

But again you are putting the evil person over your family. What if some of the people in your home also were not saved? Would you choose one unsaved person over another to sacrifice? I agree with you that we should not harm someone who does not know the Lord, but I do not believe that means we are to harm others for their sake. Both are unnecessary extremes in most circumstances. I realize that something could happen in a moment, and one would not have time to do all of this pondering. You as a husband are also commanded to give up your life for your wife. Are you going to hold one scripture over another?

 

[Giver]

But again you are putting the evil person over your family. What if some of the people in your home also were not saved? Would you choose one unsaved person over another to sacrifice? I agree with you that we should not harm someone who does not know the Lord, but I do not believe that means we are to harm others for their sake. Both are unnecessary extremes in most circumstances. I realize that something could happen in a moment, and one would not have time to do all of this pondering. You as a husband are also commanded to give up your life for your wife. Are you going to hold one scripture over another?

I can’t say that I truly know what you are asking. First I am to love God and then my neighbor as my self. I am to love my wife as myself. If Jesus told us not to harm anyone for any reason then if I would not defend myself, because of what Jesus said; what is the difference if I don’t defend anyone else?


People make up all these hypothetical situations, and want to know what we should do if? Jesus is in control of our lives, and he will give us the grace and knowledge to do what is right if and when anything bad should happen. I don’t believe we get the knowledge or grace before something happens.

 

[Romanseight2005]

I agree, but I just don't agree that that we should not make an effort to protect those who have been entrusted to us. You have also been instructed to love your neighbor as yourself. This puts all of us on the same billing, not the stranger on higher billing than your family. I do agree that we have to trust God to give us the grace to know what to do. I just won't assume that means sacrificing my family for a stranger.

 

[GenemZ]

Isaiah 9:6 (New International Version)
"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
​

The verse refers to a Messiah figure of Isaiah's time, nothing more, nothing less. To try to pretend it refers to Jesus is fantasy.

OK.... then, who was this Messiah figure of Isaiah's time? Hmmm?

If he was to be all that? SURELY his name and acts would have been mentioned for that time in Scripture!


Do I smell a vacuum? I sure do sense one...

 

[2theBone]

OK.... then, who was this Messiah figure of Isaiah's time? Hmmm?

Surely you know that the Jews were constantly talking about a mighty warrior king who would lead them to domination of all their enemies.

Not like this was unusual.

Also not unusual that he hasn't shown up, although many of the Jews are still expecting him and it's certainly not out of the question that he could show up.......just not real likely.

 

[GenemZ]

Genez, there is something that has been bothering me here. If you think it's God's will that a person who came to harm your family be killed by you and sent to eternal damnation, then why would it not also be God's will for your family to be shot as well. Why do you feel the need to intervene and protect your family? By your logic, God would not let them die unless He wanted them to, right? It seems like a huge contradiction, and frankly quite convenient. You do what seems right for your family, and don't have to take responsibility for your actions on the perpetrator.

Why do you even side with the perp?

No one has to automatically die. You make it sound like the perp must die.

If he dies? He dies. If he is momentarily disabled from doing any harm? What's that to you?

Take care of your own family.

Exodus 22:2 (New American Standard Bible)
"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account."




.
​