-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
Jesus also said, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away." Have you ever looked with lust on anything with your right eye Esanta? Using your logic, you need to gouge it out immediately to avoid going to hell.
The problem with ignorant people like yourself Esanta is that you continually take things out of context to end up in exactly the wrong place. Gouged-out eyes and severed limbs are hyperbole. They are not meant as literal commands.
While we should take literally what the Bible presents literally, hyperbole is a regular feature of Hebrew teaching. An exaggerated picture makes a point. Jesus was also using hyperbole when he said,
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."
Clearly this was not meant literally as that was against the fifth commandment; hating is comparative; our love for Jesus should make our love for parents like hate by comparison. It was a teaching moment not a literal command to hate your family members.
In context, what Jesus is communicating in Matthew 5 is one of a number of examples by which Jesus shows that the lifestyle of the kingdom of God is more demanding with respect to the attitude of one's heart and personal behavior than what the law of Moses laid down. This does not; however, equate to every Christian has to let Muslims murder and/or enslave them, their families, and their nations as you FALSELY assert which would be not-surprisingly in violation of a great many scriptures in context.
Given your ignorance and penchant for using scripture out of context and misinterpreting it, I'm going to take the time to correct you yet again.
"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." -Proverbs 25:26
As the eminent Biblical scholar and theologian Gleason L. Archer PhD wrote in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
"How could God be called 'good' if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall? No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society.
No more effective way of promoting the cause of Satan and the powers of hell could be devised than depriving law-abiding citizens of all right of self-defense. It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought 'good' who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism.
All possibility of an ordered society would be removed on the abolition of any sort of police force. No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a 'good God' to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or the unchecked aggression of invading armies.
Not only is a proper and responsible policy of self-defense taught by Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but there were occasions when God even commissioned His people to carry out judgment on corrupt and degenerate heathen nations and the complete extermination of cities like Jericho (cf. the article on "Was Joshua justified in exterminating the population of Jericho?" in connection with Joshua 6:21). The rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy 20 represented a control of justice, fairness, and kindness in the use of the sword, and, as such, they truly did reflect the goodness of God."
Self-defense against evil is legitimized in scripture and natural law.
In fact, as Jesus was being arrested (as part of God's plan that the sinless one lay down His life willingly one time for all with no one being able to take it from Him by force) He spoke with the supernatural power of God. His voice so totally overwhelmed the soldiers that they swayed backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6). This accomplished several things but primarily it created a situation in which the soldiers were so put off by this demonstration of supernatural power that His disciples could leave the garden unharmed with their weapons in hand to use in legitimate self-defense against highway men, etc... if the need arose (and maybe it did) as Jesus was now physically separating from them to fulfill his prophesied cosmic mission at Golgotha.
What ignorant people like you do is confuse legitimate self-defense with revenge. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.
Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance and to strike someone with it was an exorbitant fine. What's being communicated here is not the threat of bodily injury but rather of insult.
The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant in that place and time. A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.
Of course, we don't want to start a fight to death or blood feud because someone insulted us. That; however, does not translate to Jesus ordering us to allow ourselves, our loved ones, and every innocent person on the planet to be victimized, robbed, assaulted, raped, enslaved and murdered by wicked people. The Bible teaches the opposite.
God permits life taking in self-defense ( Exod. 22:2 ), in capital punishment ( Gen. 9:6 ), and in just war (cf. Gen. 14:14–20 ). And when there is a theocratic command to do so, as in the case of Israel and the Canaanites, its moral justification is vouchsafed by God’s sovereignty.
In the New Testament, Jesus Himself nowhere circumvents the responsibility of the Christian to kill if necessary in the legitimate protection of his own life or family. In fact Jesus clarifies this in his Matthew 5:21 teaching has he chose a distinctive word (phoneuo) which means to murder not kill. Thayer (p. 657) states, it means "to commit murder." W.E. Vine (p. 291) states, "Pheneuo, to murder, akin tophoneus, a murderer." Etc... universal agreement on word usage.
Grow up Esanta and stop misinterpreting scripture to support the propagation of evil and destruction of the truth and righteous by violent false religious cults in this world.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it much less attempting to twist God's Word to justify it.
The problem with ignorant people like yourself Esanta is that you continually take things out of context to end up in exactly the wrong place. Gouged-out eyes and severed limbs are hyperbole. They are not meant as literal commands.
While we should take literally what the Bible presents literally, hyperbole is a regular feature of Hebrew teaching. An exaggerated picture makes a point. Jesus was also using hyperbole when he said,
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."
Clearly this was not meant literally as that was against the fifth commandment; hating is comparative; our love for Jesus should make our love for parents like hate by comparison. It was a teaching moment not a literal command to hate your family members.
In context, what Jesus is communicating in Matthew 5 is one of a number of examples by which Jesus shows that the lifestyle of the kingdom of God is more demanding with respect to the attitude of one's heart and personal behavior than what the law of Moses laid down. This does not; however, equate to every Christian has to let Muslims murder and/or enslave them, their families, and their nations as you FALSELY assert which would be not-surprisingly in violation of a great many scriptures in context.
Given your ignorance and penchant for using scripture out of context and misinterpreting it, I'm going to take the time to correct you yet again.
"Like a muddied spring or a polluted fountain is a righteous man who gives way before the wicked." -Proverbs 25:26
As the eminent Biblical scholar and theologian Gleason L. Archer PhD wrote in the Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties:
"How could God be called 'good' if He forbade His people to protect their wives from ravishment and strangulation by drunken marauders, or to resist invaders who have come to pick up their children and dash out their brains against the wall? No policy would give freer rein to wickedness and crime than a complete surrender of the right of self-defense on the part of the law-abiding members of society.
No more effective way of promoting the cause of Satan and the powers of hell could be devised than depriving law-abiding citizens of all right of self-defense. It is hard to imagine how any deity could be thought 'good' who would ordain such a policy of supine surrender to evil as that advocated by pacifism.
All possibility of an ordered society would be removed on the abolition of any sort of police force. No nation could retain its liberty or preserve the lives of its citizens if it were prevented from maintaining any sort of army for its defense. It is therefore incumbent on a 'good God' to include the right of self-defense as the prerogative of His people. He would not be good at all if He were to turn the world over to the horrors of unbridled cruelty perpetrated by violent and bloody criminals or the unchecked aggression of invading armies.
Not only is a proper and responsible policy of self-defense taught by Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, but there were occasions when God even commissioned His people to carry out judgment on corrupt and degenerate heathen nations and the complete extermination of cities like Jericho (cf. the article on "Was Joshua justified in exterminating the population of Jericho?" in connection with Joshua 6:21). The rules of war laid down in Deuteronomy 20 represented a control of justice, fairness, and kindness in the use of the sword, and, as such, they truly did reflect the goodness of God."
Self-defense against evil is legitimized in scripture and natural law.
In fact, as Jesus was being arrested (as part of God's plan that the sinless one lay down His life willingly one time for all with no one being able to take it from Him by force) He spoke with the supernatural power of God. His voice so totally overwhelmed the soldiers that they swayed backward and fell to the ground (John 18:6). This accomplished several things but primarily it created a situation in which the soldiers were so put off by this demonstration of supernatural power that His disciples could leave the garden unharmed with their weapons in hand to use in legitimate self-defense against highway men, etc... if the need arose (and maybe it did) as Jesus was now physically separating from them to fulfill his prophesied cosmic mission at Golgotha.
What ignorant people like you do is confuse legitimate self-defense with revenge. Jesus did not tell his oppressed hearers not to resist evil. His entire ministry is at odds with such a preposterous idea. He is, rather, warning against responding to evil in kind by letting the oppressor set the terms of our opposition.
Why the right cheek? A blow by the right fist in that right-handed world would land on the left cheek of the opponent. To strike the right cheek with the fist would require using the left hand, but in that society the left hand was used only for unclean tasks. As the Dead Sea Scrolls specify, even to gesture with the left hand at Qumran carried the penalty of ten days penance and to strike someone with it was an exorbitant fine. What's being communicated here is not the threat of bodily injury but rather of insult.
The intention is not to injure but to humiliate, to put someone in his or her place. One normally did not strike a peer in this way, and if one did the fine was exorbitant in that place and time. A backhand slap was the normal way of admonishing inferiors. Masters backhanded slaves; husbands, wives; parents, children; men, women; Romans, Jews.
Of course, we don't want to start a fight to death or blood feud because someone insulted us. That; however, does not translate to Jesus ordering us to allow ourselves, our loved ones, and every innocent person on the planet to be victimized, robbed, assaulted, raped, enslaved and murdered by wicked people. The Bible teaches the opposite.
God permits life taking in self-defense ( Exod. 22:2 ), in capital punishment ( Gen. 9:6 ), and in just war (cf. Gen. 14:14–20 ). And when there is a theocratic command to do so, as in the case of Israel and the Canaanites, its moral justification is vouchsafed by God’s sovereignty.
In the New Testament, Jesus Himself nowhere circumvents the responsibility of the Christian to kill if necessary in the legitimate protection of his own life or family. In fact Jesus clarifies this in his Matthew 5:21 teaching has he chose a distinctive word (phoneuo) which means to murder not kill. Thayer (p. 657) states, it means "to commit murder." W.E. Vine (p. 291) states, "Pheneuo, to murder, akin tophoneus, a murderer." Etc... universal agreement on word usage.
Grow up Esanta and stop misinterpreting scripture to support the propagation of evil and destruction of the truth and righteous by violent false religious cults in this world.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting it much less attempting to twist God's Word to justify it.
'Do not resist a wicked person' is a blank statement - a person, a committed follower of Jesus - taking up full monkhood, should not retaliate, should not 'resist a wicked person', and turning the other cheek isn't the only example of this; there's going the extra mile, giving the tunic as well as the cloak, etc etc. There's also several commands to 'love your enemies', and love is defined at length by Paul in Corinthians - patience, kindness, keeping no record of wrongs, delighting not in evil but in righteousness etc.
'Gouge out your right eye if it causes you to stumble' is clearly a symbolic teaching, though no less relevant to a full follower; if some perception means you do something immoral, change that perception, change how you 'see', that you mightn't stumble again. Remove the temptation from yourself, remove the lust itself and go forward with that.
You know, it might surprise you, but as I remember, Jesus himself resisted no person who struck him. In fact, I remember the man was scourged and beaten near death then crucified without resistance, and quite amazingly, wished forgiveness upon the men who did it to him.
Like you say, lawfulness is lawful. A person may very well abide by eye for eye, by resisting evil people, by retaliating in kind, but blamelessness goes far beyond that.
'Gouge out your right eye if it causes you to stumble' is clearly a symbolic teaching, though no less relevant to a full follower; if some perception means you do something immoral, change that perception, change how you 'see', that you mightn't stumble again. Remove the temptation from yourself, remove the lust itself and go forward with that.
You know, it might surprise you, but as I remember, Jesus himself resisted no person who struck him. In fact, I remember the man was scourged and beaten near death then crucified without resistance, and quite amazingly, wished forgiveness upon the men who did it to him.
Like you say, lawfulness is lawful. A person may very well abide by eye for eye, by resisting evil people, by retaliating in kind, but blamelessness goes far beyond that.
A
You're wrong, as usual, and even after being corrected. As I already explained to you, you are misinterpreting what Jesus said out of context in every way including epistemologically, culturally, historically, etc... and doing so in direct opposition to scripture itself.
Even the logical consequences of your false teachings, scrambled interpretations, nonsensical assertions, etc... are diametrically opposed to God's expressed will for holiness and justice according to His normative morality to be the standard in this fallen world.
Furthermore, you falsely assert that Jesus allowed himself to be murdered so everyone else has to as well. Such a nonsensical false statement should be obvious but obvious just soars right over your head. All you're displaying is your great ignorance.
And it's that ignorance that's led you to be an enabler of the wicked who falsely teaches that Christians are commanded by Christ to wickedly allow themselves, their families, their neighbors, etc... to be murdered and enslaved by the wicked.
Obviously not. Obviously, you're an ignorant person who's deceived himself.
I redirect you back to my previous post for further enlightenment and edification.
Even the logical consequences of your false teachings, scrambled interpretations, nonsensical assertions, etc... are diametrically opposed to God's expressed will for holiness and justice according to His normative morality to be the standard in this fallen world.
Furthermore, you falsely assert that Jesus allowed himself to be murdered so everyone else has to as well. Such a nonsensical false statement should be obvious but obvious just soars right over your head. All you're displaying is your great ignorance.
And it's that ignorance that's led you to be an enabler of the wicked who falsely teaches that Christians are commanded by Christ to wickedly allow themselves, their families, their neighbors, etc... to be murdered and enslaved by the wicked.
Obviously not. Obviously, you're an ignorant person who's deceived himself.
I redirect you back to my previous post for further enlightenment and edification.
Its interesting that in topic threads like this (islam, roman church, law, sabbath or kjv only) many of unknown nicknames appear with 20 posts only or so.
Nicknames which are not active in any other discussions..
I wonder why they are waiting only for "their" topic and have nothing to say to anything else regarding Christianity.
Nicknames which are not active in any other discussions..
I wonder why they are waiting only for "their" topic and have nothing to say to anything else regarding Christianity.
Yes they simply are following after another christ, another kind Bible as the law, as another gospel (false) other than that of Christ’s Bible ,the perfect book with no laws missing by which we could now Him be more intimately according His Spirit of faith that dwells in us. If any man has not the Spirit of Christ, they simply do not belong to God.
They would simply be those who have added to the scriptures with their own book coming from a false prophet. Therefore making scripture to no effect, as commandments of natural unconverted men.
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the “last time”.They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John
Their manifestation that they were not of us, it is indicated by their unwillingness to not add or subtract from the whole counsel of God ending with Revelation. This would I believe show they do not have the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God .
Today if any man say; I heard the audible voice of God, or claim to see a vision, as another form of prophecy and proclaim as in the Lord told me ; "they have already failed the test". His will is sealed in His book.
2:18 1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
They would simply be those who have added to the scriptures with their own book coming from a false prophet. Therefore making scripture to no effect, as commandments of natural unconverted men.
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the “last time”.They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. 1John
Their manifestation that they were not of us, it is indicated by their unwillingness to not add or subtract from the whole counsel of God ending with Revelation. This would I believe show they do not have the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit of God .
Today if any man say; I heard the audible voice of God, or claim to see a vision, as another form of prophecy and proclaim as in the Lord told me ; "they have already failed the test". His will is sealed in His book.
2:18 1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.