Where does it say these continued in a profession that ignored Jesus' teachings? History says Cornelius became a pastor. We can assume since they were saved, having faith for healing, they would become followers of Christ's teaching on non-violence. The early church would not grant membership to military members without them breaking away for a certain period of time, according to history.
The way of our Lord Jesus Christ
- Thread starter MikkoAinasoja
- Start date
-
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.
2 timothy 3
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
matthew 21
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
john 2 15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
_________
2555. chamas ►
Strong's Concordance
chamas: violence, wrong
Original Word: חָמָס
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chamas
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-mawce')
Definition: violence, wrong
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from chamas
Definition
violence, wrong
NASB Translation
malicious (3), violence (48), violent (6), wrong
There need not be a drop of malice, in physically defending a child from a rapist.
Wouldn't qualify as how violence was used in scripture.
Delivering the helpless out of the hands of the wicked is not described as violence.
Psalms 82:3
“Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.”
Psalms 82:4 - Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked.
Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
__________
You have been proven objectively (with no possible chance of argument) wrong about what you believe multiple scriptures to mean multiple times.
You have been given multiple correct answers to your silly questions.
Yet you have yet to make one valid point in 8 pages.
I will pray God opens your eyes and that one day you can know Him, opposed to your false idea of who He is.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
matthew 21
And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
john 2 15
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
_________
2555. chamas ►
Strong's Concordance
chamas: violence, wrong
Original Word: חָמָס
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chamas
Phonetic Spelling: (khaw-mawce')
Definition: violence, wrong
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from chamas
Definition
violence, wrong
NASB Translation
malicious (3), violence (48), violent (6), wrong
There need not be a drop of malice, in physically defending a child from a rapist.
Wouldn't qualify as how violence was used in scripture.
Delivering the helpless out of the hands of the wicked is not described as violence.
Psalms 82:3
“Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.”
Psalms 82:4 - Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked.
Romans 12:18 - If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
__________
You have been proven objectively (with no possible chance of argument) wrong about what you believe multiple scriptures to mean multiple times.
You have been given multiple correct answers to your silly questions.
Yet you have yet to make one valid point in 8 pages.
I will pray God opens your eyes and that one day you can know Him, opposed to your false idea of who He is.
Quotes from the Early Church Writers on Military Service http://taddelay.com/
Hippolytus (170-235)
(discussing prostitutes, idol-sculptors, gladiators, astrologers, soldiers, and other professions prohibited to Christians…)
“A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected… If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God.”[1]
Origen (182-254)
“And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to ‘cut down our hostile and insolent “wordy” swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war.’ For we no longer take up ‘sword against nation,’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore,’ having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed.”[2]
“…for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked.”[3]
Justin Martyr (100-165)
“We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”[4]
“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,— our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage, —and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.”[5]
“we do not wage war against our enemies,”[6]
Tertullian (160-220)
“But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Caesar.”[7]
“To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oathto be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ?... Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?... Indeed, if, putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life…”[8]
Athenagoras (133-190)
“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one… How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?”[9]
Arnobius (d. 330)
“We, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.”[10]
Tatian (120-180)
“I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command… Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.”[11]
Iranaeus (130-200)
“But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, then the prophets have not spoken these things of any other person, but of Him who effected them.”[12]
Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
“Let the Athenian, then follow the laws of Solon, the Argive those of Phoroneus, and the Spartan those of Lycurgus. But if you record yourself among God’s people, then heaven is your fatherland and God your lawgiver.”[13]
“For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do, peace.”[14]
Martin of Tours (316-397)
“Hitherto I have served you as a soldier; allow me now to become a soldier to God. Let the man who is to serve you receive your donatives. I am the soldier of Christ; it is not lawful for me to fight.”[15]
A few more that I did not have space for in my paper:
Clement of Alexandria
“Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence.”
Aristides
“Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians.”
Ignatius of Antioch
“There is nothing better than peace, in which all warfare of things in heaven and things on earth is abolished.”
Arnobius
“We would rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. As a result, an ungrateful world is now enjoying–and for a long period has enjoyed–a benefit from Christ. For by his means, the rage of savage ferocity has been softened and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature. In fact, if all men without exception…would lend an ear for a while to his salutary and peaceful rules,…the whole world would be living in the most peaceful tranquility. The world would have turned the use of steel into more peaceful uses and would unite together in blessed harmony.”
Cyprian of Carthage
“Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder–which is admitted to be a crime in the case of an individual–is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale!”
Archelaus, "Disputation of Archelaus and Manes"
“Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service.”
Athenagoras of Athens, "A Plea for the Christians"
“We have rejected such spectacles as the Coliseum. How then, when we do not even look on killing lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?”
Hippolytus (170-235)
(discussing prostitutes, idol-sculptors, gladiators, astrologers, soldiers, and other professions prohibited to Christians…)
“A soldier of the civil authority must be taught not to kill men and to refuse to do so if he is commanded, and to refuse to take an oath; if he is unwilling to comply, he must be rejected… If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God.”[1]
Origen (182-254)
“And to those who inquire of us whence we come, or who is our founder, we reply that we are come, agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to ‘cut down our hostile and insolent “wordy” swords into ploughshares, and to convert into pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war.’ For we no longer take up ‘sword against nation,’ nor do we ‘learn war anymore,’ having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed.”[2]
“…for neither Celsus nor they who think with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defense of the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples to offer violence to any one, however wicked.”[3]
Justin Martyr (100-165)
“We who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies, but also, that we may not lie nor deceive our examiners, willingly die confessing Christ.”[4]
“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,— our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage, —and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.”[5]
“we do not wage war against our enemies,”[6]
Tertullian (160-220)
“But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human sacrament, the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil, the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to two masters—God and Caesar.”[7]
“To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oathto be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise to another master after Christ?... Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? And shall the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law?... Indeed, if, putting my strength to the question, I banish from us the military life…”[8]
Athenagoras (133-190)
“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one… How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?”[9]
Arnobius (d. 330)
“We, a numerous band of men as we are, have learned from His teaching and His laws that evil ought not to be requited with evil, that it is better to suffer wrong than to inflict it, that we should rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another.”[10]
Tatian (120-180)
“I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich; I decline military command… Die to the world, repudiating the madness that is in it.”[11]
Iranaeus (130-200)
“But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, then the prophets have not spoken these things of any other person, but of Him who effected them.”[12]
Clement of Alexandria (150-215)
“Let the Athenian, then follow the laws of Solon, the Argive those of Phoroneus, and the Spartan those of Lycurgus. But if you record yourself among God’s people, then heaven is your fatherland and God your lawgiver.”[13]
“For we are not to delineate the faces of idols, we who are prohibited to cleave to them; nor a sword, nor a bow, following as we do, peace.”[14]
Martin of Tours (316-397)
“Hitherto I have served you as a soldier; allow me now to become a soldier to God. Let the man who is to serve you receive your donatives. I am the soldier of Christ; it is not lawful for me to fight.”[15]
A few more that I did not have space for in my paper:
Clement of Alexandria
“Above all, Christians are not allowed to correct with violence.”
Aristides
“Whatever Christians would not wish others to do to them, they do not to others. And they comfort their oppressors and make them their friends; they do good to their enemies…. Through love towards their oppressors, they persuade them to become Christians.”
Ignatius of Antioch
“There is nothing better than peace, in which all warfare of things in heaven and things on earth is abolished.”
Arnobius
“We would rather shed our own blood than stain our hands and our conscience with that of another. As a result, an ungrateful world is now enjoying–and for a long period has enjoyed–a benefit from Christ. For by his means, the rage of savage ferocity has been softened and has begun to withhold hostile hands from the blood of a fellow creature. In fact, if all men without exception…would lend an ear for a while to his salutary and peaceful rules,…the whole world would be living in the most peaceful tranquility. The world would have turned the use of steel into more peaceful uses and would unite together in blessed harmony.”
Cyprian of Carthage
“Wars are scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood. And murder–which is admitted to be a crime in the case of an individual–is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not because they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale!”
Archelaus, "Disputation of Archelaus and Manes"
“Those soldiers were filled with wonder and admiration at the grandeur of the man’s piety and generosity and were struck with amazement. They felt the force of this example of pity. As a result, many of them were added to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ and threw off the belt of military service.”
Athenagoras of Athens, "A Plea for the Christians"
“We have rejected such spectacles as the Coliseum. How then, when we do not even look on killing lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death?”
Certain traditions hold Cornelius as becoming either the first bishop of Caesarea, or the bishop of Scepsis in Mysia.[4][7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_the_Centurion The footnotes have several histories each.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornelius_the_Centurion The footnotes have several histories each.
Jesus' mission was to die for the sins of the world so of course he did not condone violence or even self-defense. Our mission is not to die for the sins of the world but rather live out our faith through righteous acts. A righteous act could be to die for our faith if that is what we believe but it could also be to defend the innocent if we believe that is what is best. So, the righteousness is determined by us acting on what we believe.
Send them to hell in love? Here's one. I read about a missionary held hostage by ISIS. They began cutting off his son's fingers one by one unless he would deny Christ. Eventually, they killed the entire family along with him. Would you have held the line as well? Don't we deny Christ when we reject his word on non-violence and announce to him and the world we have a price and will sell him out when reached?
oh yes Rose,
you are defending your sweet Faith with a gentle and kind spirit -
on the one hand, we have Peter who Loved his Lord with all of his heart,
but took-up his sword to defend Him in his love and zeal -
there's a time for peace and there's a time for war.
Abraham had a very quiet and meek spirit, but he WAS a 'sleeping-lion'...
if we are like Paul who believed everything written in the Law and the Prophets,
it is perfectly acceptable to defend your house-hold from any kind of intrusion or
trespass with the necessary force to protect your 'responsibility', in another words,
'if you get the culprit under control, you're not to 'beat him to death' just because
you are angry or defensive, because, in this way, you are protecting your own household
and loving your enemies 'at the same time'... you can give him a couple of extra un-harmful kicks, but...
once you perceive that your heart is in Christ's rules, then all else will fall into place, (for the True Christian),..
you are defending your sweet Faith with a gentle and kind spirit -
on the one hand, we have Peter who Loved his Lord with all of his heart,
but took-up his sword to defend Him in his love and zeal -
there's a time for peace and there's a time for war.
Abraham had a very quiet and meek spirit, but he WAS a 'sleeping-lion'...
if we are like Paul who believed everything written in the Law and the Prophets,
it is perfectly acceptable to defend your house-hold from any kind of intrusion or
trespass with the necessary force to protect your 'responsibility', in another words,
'if you get the culprit under control, you're not to 'beat him to death' just because
you are angry or defensive, because, in this way, you are protecting your own household
and loving your enemies 'at the same time'... you can give him a couple of extra un-harmful kicks, but...
once you perceive that your heart is in Christ's rules, then all else will fall into place, (for the True Christian),..
-
1
-
1
- Show all
You're in Finland. Did you mean to put this anti firearms bunk on a Finish site to chastise the 1.5 million Finish gun owners in your back yard?
That's one of the issues I had and still have with some things in the bible. I'm suppose to love my enemy. If they were lovable they wouldn't be my enemy. When they're my enemy they don't love me. I'm suppose to forgive them no matter what they do as my enemy. Seventy times seven, as I recall.
No matter what they do. They rob me, kill my kids, rape and hang my wife, gut my dog and lay her on the hood of my car for me to find first. And then the rest of my family.
But I am to love them and forgive them. That means I don't call the cops. I don't follow the case to insure the murderer is made to answer to man's laws for his crimes. I'm suppose to love him and forgive him.
That's a lot of talk until something horrible happens like that to someone who claims they're suppose to love their enemy. And look weak and worthy of anything that enemy has in store. Because that enemy knows the sap they want to hurt loves to follow some rule about enemy love more than his family.
Now let me get to that other part. Ask yourself what did God do to his enemies? Give them a big hug, all the blessings they could carry, and eternal life with him?
God made Hell for sinners. Those are enemies of his righteousness, yes? If I'm suppose to love my enemy no matter what why did God that made that rule make Hell for his?
No guns! You're entitled to make that choice. In Finland! If you want to not be a brazen hypocrite when you are against guns and advocate love for your enemy, you won't call the police if someone breaks into your house and kills your family. You'll love that murderer and forgive them. No matter what. Seventy times seven times.
If you can do that you didn't love your family. But you did show a lot more restraint than the God that made you believe that rule you're suppose to follow . All found in the same bible where he accounts his mass murders of his enemies, while in the back of the bible tells you to love yours and forgive them no matter what. Why didn't God make that rule after he set its example first?
Anti gun people make me sick. If they were true to their weak advocacy they'd never call people who have guns to save them from those who have guns and want to hurt the unarmed. And they sure as hell have no right to talk to American's about our gun rights when they live in Finland.
Ever think that God inspired the creation of weapons? No, of course not.
That's one of the issues I had and still have with some things in the bible. I'm suppose to love my enemy. If they were lovable they wouldn't be my enemy. When they're my enemy they don't love me. I'm suppose to forgive them no matter what they do as my enemy. Seventy times seven, as I recall.
No matter what they do. They rob me, kill my kids, rape and hang my wife, gut my dog and lay her on the hood of my car for me to find first. And then the rest of my family.
But I am to love them and forgive them. That means I don't call the cops. I don't follow the case to insure the murderer is made to answer to man's laws for his crimes. I'm suppose to love him and forgive him.
That's a lot of talk until something horrible happens like that to someone who claims they're suppose to love their enemy. And look weak and worthy of anything that enemy has in store. Because that enemy knows the sap they want to hurt loves to follow some rule about enemy love more than his family.
Now let me get to that other part. Ask yourself what did God do to his enemies? Give them a big hug, all the blessings they could carry, and eternal life with him?
God made Hell for sinners. Those are enemies of his righteousness, yes? If I'm suppose to love my enemy no matter what why did God that made that rule make Hell for his?
No guns! You're entitled to make that choice. In Finland! If you want to not be a brazen hypocrite when you are against guns and advocate love for your enemy, you won't call the police if someone breaks into your house and kills your family. You'll love that murderer and forgive them. No matter what. Seventy times seven times.
If you can do that you didn't love your family. But you did show a lot more restraint than the God that made you believe that rule you're suppose to follow . All found in the same bible where he accounts his mass murders of his enemies, while in the back of the bible tells you to love yours and forgive them no matter what. Why didn't God make that rule after he set its example first?
Anti gun people make me sick. If they were true to their weak advocacy they'd never call people who have guns to save them from those who have guns and want to hurt the unarmed. And they sure as hell have no right to talk to American's about our gun rights when they live in Finland.
Ever think that God inspired the creation of weapons? No, of course not.