-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Peter King (R-NY) introduces gun control legislation
- Thread starter Mercy Not Sacrifice
- Start date
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
There are many accounts from both Pagen and Christian sources. We have jail house letters of Christians who want to die with their friends. There are testimonies of Gladiatorial spectators of families of Christians bravely walking to their death refusing to defend themselves.
It was the norm Paul, Peter, and most of the disciples were martyred.
Jesus told them not to fight back.
Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Matthew 26:52
When you read the writings of early Christians it becomes very clear that they did not believe in self defense.
We have learned not to return blow for blow,nor even to go to the law with those who plunder and rob us. Instead, even to those who strike us on one side of the face, we offer the other side also.
-Athenagoras 175 ad
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Did Christ grab a sword and call up an army. No he gave himself to die. That was the early Proto Orthodox Christian ideal. Taking up a cross.
I am not saying this is what you should do. Only that this was the beliefs of the early Christians.
Would Christ have allowed his loved ones to have been killed? It is one thing to die standing for something but in today's world it would be simply a statistic.
I think of many of the suicide bombers out there and see they have a life of torment at times and no real assets. Look at their leaders. How many of them blow up.
I am not arguing against what you have said and Martyrdom was the norm for the leaders at first but not the followers. It did evolve into a Christian hunt at a point and to say they walked out and got killed is the short story. They refused to deny their faith and were sentenced. Why cry of fight when the end is inevitable.
BTW: If no Cristians ever stood up we would not be talking about them in the present tense. Also I never said I was a Christian. I am an Agnostic that follows the teachings of the Bible and perhaps one day I will put God in a box like most of them do and become a full fledged Christian.
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
There is a letter from a Christian in jail who the Romans did not want to kill right away because see was pregnant. The Romans wanted to delay her execution. She was insisting that she wanted to die with friends. The belief of the early Christians was life and death were meaningless. In fact there are early writings of Christians that criticize the Gnostic's because they were not as willing to be martyrs.
Last edited:
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I just thought you are. Due to your title. Avid Bible scripturalist
I am not calling for all to be pacifists. I just think Todays Christians seem to want to forget that side of their history.
Last edited:
I agree. I think the problem is leaders like Bush setting bad examples and people like Carter actually believing and getting criticized for it.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
The NT doesn't teach that self defense is wrong. Here are some passages and verses which address the Christian's right to protect themselves and others, and/or to serve in the military (which by necessity means carrying a weapon which may be used):
Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.
Matthew 8
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”
8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Acts 10
Cornelius Calls for Peter
1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.” 7 When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. 8 He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.
None of the soldiers, centurions, etc in the New Testament (and there are quite a few mentioned) were instructed to resign from military service. And the New Testament is full of imagery and language related to military service and soldiering.
Luke 22:35-39 And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?" So they said, "Nothing." 36 Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. 37 "For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." 38 So they said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." 39 Coming out, He went to the Mount of Olives, as He was accustomed, and His disciples also followed Him.
Matthew 8
5 When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6 “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
7 Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”
8 The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10 When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Acts 10
Cornelius Calls for Peter
1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”
4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.
The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter. 6 He is staying with Simon the tanner, whose house is by the sea.” 7 When the angel who spoke to him had gone, Cornelius called two of his servants and a devout soldier who was one of his attendants. 8 He told them everything that had happened and sent them to Joppa.
None of the soldiers, centurions, etc in the New Testament (and there are quite a few mentioned) were instructed to resign from military service. And the New Testament is full of imagery and language related to military service and soldiering.
dmgdnooc
Active Member
Resignation was not an option.
A soldier (of that time) could not resign from military service, 25 years seems to be the standard enlistment, once 'in' they were, for all intents and purposes, 'in' until death, old age, ill-health or injury debarred them from further service.
　
Soldiers came to John the Baptist (Luke 3.14) and 'demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do?
And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse (any) falsely; and be content with your wages.'
The translation is from the KJV but the sense of it doesn't appear to alter from version to version.
Luke 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely; and be content with your wages."
It is the second part of a couplet that links Publicans (tax collectors) with Soldiers, ie those in service to the political authority. And is centred on the idea that those in positions of authority over the people should not use the advantages of their position for personal gain or persecution.
I suppose a soldier, or any public official, conforming to these precepts could be 'righteous' within the ambit of the NT.
A soldier (of that time) could not resign from military service, 25 years seems to be the standard enlistment, once 'in' they were, for all intents and purposes, 'in' until death, old age, ill-health or injury debarred them from further service.
　
Soldiers came to John the Baptist (Luke 3.14) and 'demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do?
And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse (any) falsely; and be content with your wages.'
The translation is from the KJV but the sense of it doesn't appear to alter from version to version.
Luke 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely; and be content with your wages."
It is the second part of a couplet that links Publicans (tax collectors) with Soldiers, ie those in service to the political authority. And is centred on the idea that those in positions of authority over the people should not use the advantages of their position for personal gain or persecution.
I suppose a soldier, or any public official, conforming to these precepts could be 'righteous' within the ambit of the NT.
Last edited:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
Interesting. I haven't been able to find any translation OTHER than the KJV which says anything along the lines of "Do no violence." Wonder why that is? I've looked at all the major translations and they simply don't address "violence."
Violence referenced in Luke 3:14
διασείω
diaseiō
dee-as-i'-o
From G1223 and G4579; to shake thoroughly, that is, (figuratively) to intimidate: - do violence to.
G4579
σείω
seiō
si'-o
Apparently a primary verb; to rock (vibrate, properly sideways or to and fro), that is, (generally) to agitate (in any direction; cause to tremble); figuratively to throw into a tremor (of fear or concern): - move, quake, shake.
G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
This is the first shake down. It was not meant in any other way than justifiable action. Do not abuse your power.
Taken in context this is not saying commit no violence it is saying no unnecessary roughness or intimidation, epically intimidation.
Luk 3:10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
Luk 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Luk 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
Luk 3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Luk 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Luk 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Also our current Violence is not what violence was and the current word came into use in the thirteenth century:
late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.
Even the 1568 version of the Bishops Bible uses violence: Luk 3:14 The souldiours lykewyse demaunded of hym, saying: And what shall we do? And he saide vnto them: Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.
This is referring to the Greek word used not our modern definition and that is the most likely reason it is only seen in the KJV.
ESV: Luk 3:14 Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."
ISV: Luk 3:14 Even some soldiers were asking him, "And what should we do?" He told them, "Never extort money from anyone by threats or blackmail, and be satisfied with your pay."
NIV:Luk 3:14Then some soldiers asked him, And what should we do?He replied, Dont extort money and dont accuse people falselybe content with your pay.
All modern translations are more in line with the Greek and the KJV was not incorrect but the meanings of words change over time.
διασείω
diaseiō
dee-as-i'-o
From G1223 and G4579; to shake thoroughly, that is, (figuratively) to intimidate: - do violence to.
G4579
σείω
seiō
si'-o
Apparently a primary verb; to rock (vibrate, properly sideways or to and fro), that is, (generally) to agitate (in any direction; cause to tremble); figuratively to throw into a tremor (of fear or concern): - move, quake, shake.
G1223
διά
dia
dee-ah'
A primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal or occasional). In composition it retains the same general import: - after, always, among, at, to avoid, because of (that), briefly, by, for (cause) . . . fore, from, in, by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake, that, thereby, therefore, X though, through (-out), to, wherefore, with (-in). In composition it retains the same general import.
This is the first shake down. It was not meant in any other way than justifiable action. Do not abuse your power.
Taken in context this is not saying commit no violence it is saying no unnecessary roughness or intimidation, epically intimidation.
Luk 3:10 And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?
Luk 3:11 He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.
Luk 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?
Luk 3:13 And he said unto them, Exact no more than that which is appointed you.
Luk 3:14 And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.
Luk 3:15 And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not;
Luk 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Luk 3:17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Also our current Violence is not what violence was and the current word came into use in the thirteenth century:
late 13c., "physical force used to inflict injury or damage," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. violence, from L. violentia "vehemence, impetuosity," from violentus "vehement, forcible," probably related to violare (see violate). Weakened sense of "improper treatment" is attested from 1590s.
Even the 1568 version of the Bishops Bible uses violence: Luk 3:14 The souldiours lykewyse demaunded of hym, saying: And what shall we do? And he saide vnto them: Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.
This is referring to the Greek word used not our modern definition and that is the most likely reason it is only seen in the KJV.
ESV: Luk 3:14 Soldiers also asked him, "And we, what shall we do?" And he said to them, "Do not extort money from anyone by threats or by false accusation, and be content with your wages."
ISV: Luk 3:14 Even some soldiers were asking him, "And what should we do?" He told them, "Never extort money from anyone by threats or blackmail, and be satisfied with your pay."
NIV:Luk 3:14Then some soldiers asked him, And what should we do?He replied, Dont extort money and dont accuse people falselybe content with your pay.
All modern translations are more in line with the Greek and the KJV was not incorrect but the meanings of words change over time.
Last edited:
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Even though I couldn't find it, I do agree that that was one sick individual.
Really?
[youtube]ueJ_CydW9So[/youtube]
Ignore the debatable part about gun control statistics, and focus on Rep. Trent Frank's second comment and the witness to the Arizona shooting incident.
Ooooooh!
Last edited:
Yes really and also it was a different incident I commented on in that post.
Yes one CC person could have ended it quickly but the responsible thing to do was done in this situation. We were not there but I doubt getting off a clean shot would have been easy.
Rhetoric. Ignore the commentary and focus on the facts. He was responsible and he was not there when the shooting was going on and if he had been then he would have shot at the shooter not the guy holding the gun.
Sorry that = fail.
Mercy Not Sacrifice
Well-Known Member
Did you miss the part where Rachel specifically mentioned that the armed citizen was ready to shoot an innocent person? Or did you cut the video clip short (or skip it entirely) because Maddow is a librul, big guv'mint soshalist?
Requia
Active Member
The shooting range?
Did you miss the part where Rachel specifically mentioned that the armed citizen was ready to shoot an innocent person? Or did you cut the video clip short (or skip it entirely) because Maddow is a librul, big guv'mint soshalist?
No I watched the whole thing and what part of this was not clear? "Rhetoric. Ignore the commentary and focus on the facts. He was responsible and he was not there when the shooting was going on and if he had been then he would have shot at the shooter not the guy holding the gun."
"Sorry that = fail."
If he had been there before the tackle he would have not shot at the wrong person and the fact that he did not shoot also shows responsible gun ownership because the situation was getting under control and he did not know the facts. He could not have shot the wrong person because he did not shoot. Don't twist things man.
Last edited:
dmgdnooc
Active Member
I think that Archer is on the right track re the KJV's use of the word 'violence'.
In that it pertains here to threats and intimidatory actions designed to extort money (or goods) from the populace.
I don't think that it refers to the violence of battle against an armed enemy.
　
Several of the translations here perpetuate the KJV's use of the word but you will probably acknowledge that use of the words 'extort', 'oppress', 'take by force' etc carry, by implication, the idea of violence or threats of violence.
Luke 3:14 Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay."
　
Maybe a Greek speaker could expand further.