This Guy: Mark Keith Robinson

Responding to my own post!

I am reminded of the story of the 40 Roman soldiers, the "Martyrs of Sevaste," who froze to death on an ice-covered lake rather than renounce their faith. This was after the Edict of Milan--the relevance of which I still have not figured out. Anyway, their story proves that Christians of the 4th century were not universally opposed to military service and thus, violence.

See a version of the story here: 40 Martyrs of Sevaste

 

If I call you a thug, It would not be true. You obviously are not a thug. But your position on violence is closer to the violent mindset than it is to the Jesus mindset, who taught non violence.

 

I would do anything short of killing an enemy to stop the rape or murder of my wife too. Only I would not use violence nor kill the enemy I'm supposed to love. So if you are a thug, count me as one too.

 

Please remember this all happened under the Old Covenant when violence prevailed. But no so under the New Covenant.

 

Sorry, you would not be able to stop a thug from raping and/or murdering your wife without using violence. I've examined a multitude of such events in my avocation, and if a thug is intent on immediate violence, only violence will stop him.

An old but dumb aphorism is, "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" (ostensibly from a character in a novel by atheist Isaac Asimov). I amend that to say, "Violence is the last refuge of the competent."

 

Surely you are not like the hyper dispensationalists who teach that nothing before Acts 16 is relevant for the present age. That is extremely poor theology. In fact, you've already quoted Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount saying that we should turn the other cheek. So now, when I quote John the Baptist and the same Jesus from the same time period you object? How does that work?

Under your logic, the teachings of Christ against violence were in the Old Covenant, so they are not valid for the New Covenant age.

 

What you say is true. But it only amplifies the courage it takes to deal with it as Jesus would. In view of this, the disciples and Apostles are the true heroes of the world, not those who kill to keep from being killed.

 

I cannot correlate your position with Jesus or any NT believer.

 

All I'm saying is that Jeremiah said the NT would replace the OT.

 

Opinions do not count. But if you can produce examples of believers in the NT upholding your convictions it would help solve the problem. I offer that not one believer practiced violent self defence as I believe.

 

“But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. “And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.” When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.” (Hebrews 8:8–13) (NET)

 

You cannot produce one example of christians using violent self-defence (without being rebuked for it - Peter). If you could, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

So then, my comments on Jesus speaking to soldiers are relevant, are they not? You denied their relevance before, even thought they were from the NT. You can't have it both ways. I've produced many quotes from the NT, and you really haven't answered any of them.

Answer this: did Jesus use violence in casting the money changers out of the temple, or did He not? It's a simple question.

 

John the Baptist was the last OT prophet. So all of this was in accord to OT Law. In the NT Cornelius was a soldier who became the first gentile convert baptised in the Holy Spirit. Did he continue as a soldier?

 

Tut tut. John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus, in the NT, nor part of the OT, and he did not preach the law. His message was, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matt. 3:2). Then Jesus preached the exact same message (Matt. 4:17). Since Jesus preached the exact same message as John, tell me again how John was in line with the OT law.

Of course he continued as a soldier, since Peter did not tell him not to! And when Jesus healed the servant of a centurion in Matt. 8, He also did not tell the man to quit the army.

Now answer my question: did Jesus use violence when he drove the money changers out of the temple?