Women aren't second-class believers

Not swords, just one. One is sufficient for defense. Two would be the beginnings of an arsenal for offense.

Why don't you mediatate for a while on why Luke would record the instruction to make sure that the disciples had a sword before giving up the notion of self-defense? Remember, at this juncture it was more important than a cloak or a wallet.

 

My mistake, the disciples did have two swords.

Though as a twist to the Passage, the statement "It is enough," may have been to end the conversation, not in reference to the amount of swords.

 

As far a self defense goes, even 2 swords will only defend 2 people. There were more than 2 people with Jesus at the time.

You are making an assumption that it was for self defense. It could have symbolized something else.

Saying that it must have been for self defense is adding to scripture. That isn't a very wise thing to do.

 

...and you are making the assumption that they are not for self-defense.

The statement "It is enough" could have also been spoken in irony, meaning that two was NOT enough swords for what was to come.

The peitism you describe is practiced by certain sects of Christianity such as the Dutch Amish, so it is not an idea I entirely dismiss. However, it goes against the teachings of a strong man defending his home against a robber in Matthew 12:29 or indeed the use of a whip in John 2:15.

 

Did Jesus make whips for self defense?

Perhaps there are things worth fighting about, while other things are not. Jesus' example of what he fought about would not show that self defense is a good reason. As I noted earlier, Jesus had a reason to defend himself in his home town, but God merely allowed him to escape.

What is written about a strong man defending his house has nothing to do with what one should do, it merely states what will happen. It could be the net result of our fallen state.

 

He did so to defend the integrity of the Temple, the domicile in which the Holy Spirit dwelt. The Holy Spirit now (since the Day of Pentecost) dwells within the believer:

1 Corinthians 6
19Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

I'm sure you can see the parallel.

You asked for Biblical defense outside of social values. I hope you now have it. Sorry, Nils, I just don't have the time for the long debates like I used to (sigh), but I'll check back in later.

 

I disagree. She is knowingly having him thrown in jail and out of the house. This is usurping authority. </font>[/QUOTE]Well he is a jerk. That is probably what he needs to get his attention whne he violates the law. Spousal abuse is a violation of civil law. He is usurping the authoruty that governs the land we live in. The husband's authority does not go higher than the authority of the civil authorities. God gave civil authorities.

Do you have a one track mind? You only address the issues you want and ignore the rest. I asked you some questions earlier and you never responded.

 

Where in the Bible does it say that a husband who is a jerk or in violation of civil law is not to be respected and to be the head of the family?

If you'll go back and read an earlier post I made to Clint, you'll see that I already dealt with thie 'jerk' issue.

 

Grasping for straws I see.

 

That's a mighty weak rebuttal. Do you also think there was another reason Christ used a whip or is that another, "I don't know why he did it" issue like the sword thing?

Do you not believe that the body of the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit?

 

Yes, the body is the temple.

Did Jesus get upset at people destroying the temple itself? That would represent anything done our bodies.

Jesus was upset about what was being done on the inside of the temple. What seperates us from God happens within us, not what happens on the outside.

You are making the mistake of believing that what happens to us is important. It is our own relationship with God which is important. This is the very reason why slavery is allowed in a Godly community. This is the very reason why liberals must make up excuses for why there are so many insonsitancies between their idea of a loving God and what the Bible says God commands.

We must re-evaluate what is important in life and why. We must see what beliefs are of God and what beliefs are a result of society's beliefs making its way into the realm of God's commands.

 

If this is a mistaken concept, perhaps you can explain why Paul called upon the Roman government to give him physical escort and protection in Acts 23:16-33.

 

If this is incorrect, then why is slavery allowed in the Christian community?

 

As far as the Acts question goes, I don't see anywhere in scripture where the Sanhedren is to have authority over Paul.

 

First of all, I am failing to see any relevance of this issue to the one at hand.

Secondly, Paul (and Moses as far as that goes) addressed slavery as an issue that already existed within the society. Neither Christianity nor Judaism established slavery as an institution. Christianity is not political or social activism. It is the means to salvation giving us entry into the Heavenly realm. I made a post on this issue not long ago:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=62;t=000016;p=7

You are shifting the goal post on me, which is a technique you have often used. Just to keep you from nimbly sidestepping the issue at hand that first brought me onto the thread, my position holds:

1) The state (police and courts) are established by God to defend the good and punish the wicked (Romans 13);

2) A Christian has a right to defend his or herself as Christ commanded the purchase of swords (Luke 22:36);

3) Christ further showed the use of force in defending the Temple against men's envy, greed and ambition, which, by the way, did not occur within the Most Holy Place, the inner Temple, but in the outer courts (John 2:15);

4) A parallel is made clearly in the Scriptures that the physical body of the believer is the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit and is therefore a Temple (cf. 1Corinthians 6:19-20)

Your original assertion was that there was no Biblical defense for a woman calling the police if her husband abused her basing this assertion on Matthew 5:39. I have shown you otherwise. Your question of slavery is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Matthew 23:2-3 and again Romans 13.

 

I do not doubt that this is what you see.

There is a point I'm trying to make. It just seems to get lost on most people. The point has to do with what is important. Perhaps my other thread will be more clear.

Point 1 I have no disagreement with.

Point 2 is adding to scripture.

Point 3 has already been shown to be false. Go back and read my post again if you want to know why.

Point 4 was dealt with in regard to point 3.

No you have not. All you have done is drawn conclusions on texts that have nothing to do with the matter.

 

Was this pre or post New Covenant?

If it doesn't matter, then why do you not put yourself under their rule?

I don't see how this applies to Paul. I do see how this could be used to show how the Founding Fathers were in error, but I don't see how this deals with what I'm talking about.

 

If you will not acknowledge the arguments, we will remain at an impasse. The reader of this thread can make their own determinations.

Have a good evening, Nils.

 

As always. Good night Clint.