Christians: why would you oppose this guy?
- Thread starter riflearm2
- Start date
Then, what the fvck does "rulers bear the sword" mean relating to the topic they are discussing?
Extra, do you ever sit back and wonder why, on just about every topic, people who usually oppose each other on topics all disagree with your stance? I'm not being a dick here. I'm serious. Some things are so basic, understood, and accepted by people from opposing sides, but you try to be the lone wolf who disagrees on something that isn't even disputable.
So, again, what does that quote relate to?
Extra, do you ever sit back and wonder why, on just about every topic, people who usually oppose each other on topics all disagree with your stance? I'm not being a dick here. I'm serious. Some things are so basic, understood, and accepted by people from opposing sides, but you try to be the lone wolf who disagrees on something that isn't even disputable.
So, again, what does that quote relate to?
How many of the following uses of the word "sword" are referring to a weapon made of metal?
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
________________________________________
Luke 2:35
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
_______________________________________
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
__________________________________________
Revelation 1:16
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
________________________________________
Luke 2:35
(Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
_______________________________________
Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
__________________________________________
Revelation 1:16
And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
Romans 13 is not talking about a literal sword either. "Bear the sword" is a euphemism that refers to the entirety of the Civil Government's responsibility to curb illegal activity, including the ultimate authority to use "the sword" to put to death those who commit capital crimes. In 2015 the magistrate is not required to stone murderers or use a sword in the application of the death penalty.
It is evident that the government both then and now can execute people. But you will not find Jesus supporting it anywhere in the new covenant.
Since you missed an obvious point, let's provide a more clear point. In the garden, when Christ was arrested, one of the disciples drew his sword to kill one of the Roman guards, instead cutting off the ear of the guard. Christ rebuked the disciple and stated "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword", which was a clear acknowledgement (without qualification) that the penalty for murder is execution. Matt. 25:51-54.http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Matthew-26-52/
I don't think there is anything morally wrong with capital punishment. It seems Jesus agrees with me.
I don't believe that Christians have to support it however. Just because the government at that time conducted such practices doesn't me we have to.
I don't believe that Christians have to support it however. Just because the government at that time conducted such practices doesn't me we have to.
Acknowledgement by Jesus that the secular government executed people for murder does not mean Jesus approved of that law.
My thoughts, more precisely (not necessarily the most coherent): The NT neither mandates nor prohibits a secular government from exercising its authority to punish through the use of execution; rather, the NT indicates that IF a secular government chooses to exercise this authority and power to punish in this manner, then the authority of that government tis allowed or approved. Penn2Moss came closest (IMO) to accurately expressing the idea in a post above (and at the very least, it furthers the discussion).
OTOH, Penn2Moss disagreed with my assertion (that remains quoted above), though I think P2M agrees with my interpretation more than realized.
When Christ tells Peter to put away his sword, the admonition is not general it is specific and immediate to the moment, because: the disciples are surrounded by armed officers of the Sanhedrin and Roman governments, if any of them kill one (or more) of the officers, it would be considered an illegal act (of murder) punishable by (i) execution or (ii) immediate death (in quashing the uprising).
"The NT neither mandates nor prohibits a secular government from exercising its authority to punish through the use of execution;"
Agreed. Therefore my statement that the New Testament does not support or approve capital punishment is correct.
________________________________
"rather, the NT indicates that IF a secular government chooses to exercise this authority and power to punish in this manner, then the authority of that government tis allowed or approved."
Allowed....yes.
Approved...no
___________________________________
Originally posted by extragreen:
Under the old law, a woman caught in the act of adultery was commanded by God to be stoned to death.
How then was Jesus able to refuse to keep that commandment?
Olen: "Whether a new covenant had replaced the old covenant is immaterial to the adulteress and the pharisees."
Disagree. Christ is the embodiment of the new covenant. The switching from the old law to the new was in progress and Christ, by not condemning the adultress, was exhibiting the grace covenant rather than applying the old law, which was of works. There is zero indication in the Bible that the accusers were lying, and secondly Christ would have known if they were lying. Best I can understand is that she was in fact guilty, because the Bible says "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman TAKEN IN ADULTERY." And it seems evident that Christ knew she was guilty of what she was accused, as he told her " go, and sin no more."
And Christ "pardoned" her because he had that power.
Agreed. Therefore my statement that the New Testament does not support or approve capital punishment is correct.
________________________________
"rather, the NT indicates that IF a secular government chooses to exercise this authority and power to punish in this manner, then the authority of that government tis allowed or approved."
Allowed....yes.
Approved...no
___________________________________
Originally posted by extragreen:
Under the old law, a woman caught in the act of adultery was commanded by God to be stoned to death.
How then was Jesus able to refuse to keep that commandment?
Olen: "Whether a new covenant had replaced the old covenant is immaterial to the adulteress and the pharisees."
Disagree. Christ is the embodiment of the new covenant. The switching from the old law to the new was in progress and Christ, by not condemning the adultress, was exhibiting the grace covenant rather than applying the old law, which was of works. There is zero indication in the Bible that the accusers were lying, and secondly Christ would have known if they were lying. Best I can understand is that she was in fact guilty, because the Bible says "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman TAKEN IN ADULTERY." And it seems evident that Christ knew she was guilty of what she was accused, as he told her " go, and sin no more."
And Christ "pardoned" her because he had that power.
Christians- really, why would you not support this? If your god permits capital punishment by governments, homosexuality is an abomination, and he has shown to punish by death entire cities for rampant homosexuality (hello, sodom and Gomorrah), why would you be opposed to this?
If I believed in the bible, I would support anything I could to prevent my loved ones from being destroyed because of the homosexual acts and allowances by towns.
So, if a government passed this legislation, why would you be opposed to it? Your own god has shown what should happen to those who take part in it and allow it to take place.
If I believed in the bible, I would support anything I could to prevent my loved ones from being destroyed because of the homosexual acts and allowances by towns.
So, if a government passed this legislation, why would you be opposed to it? Your own god has shown what should happen to those who take part in it and allow it to take place.
Ezekiel 16
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
49 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
Similar threads
