Uh, no, he preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ.
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since then the Gospel of God’s Kingdom is preached.
Unless, of course, you have also torn the Gospels out of your bible?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This Guy: Mark Keith Robinson
- Thread starter Benjamin
- Start date
- Status
Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John. Since then the Gospel of God’s Kingdom is preached.
Unless, of course, you have also torn the Gospels out of your bible?
Here you say you would anything short of "killing your enemy" to stop the rape and murder of your wife. Why would you stop there if that was necessary to stop the violence toward your wife? Love? John of Japan has given you an order of love, God, family, neighbor, enemy and it seems you would prefer to put the enemy at the top of that list? You really need to address why you draw this line with reason other than "love your enemy" because you do not seem to factor in the higher order of love.
You just said you would do "anything short of killing", did you not? Define "anything" in such a situation, please? You need to take your thinking beyond love of your enemy and factor in your love for wife, both of which are instructed with deep meaning in the Bible. It is like you are using blinders to avoid distinguishing between where the higher love should rest. Just a thought, but my view of you claiming to allow your wife to be raped and murdered by stopping short of violence or killing, whichever extreme is necessary to protect your wife, is in fact doing violence to your wife by not protecting her with every ounce of strength you have even if it means your own death!
Just a friendly reminder,you seem to be pretty well mannered in your debate, but be aware some here may get easily frustrated and twist anything you say into an accusation and use it for a debate tactic that is known as a Reverse Ad Hominem to accuse you of personal attacks and breaking the rules. .
In other words Dave, I would view you as “responsible” for doing violence to your wife and ignoring the order of love as Biblically defined, if you did not do everything in your power that was necessary to defend her. At such a point, the methods and reasoning you are using here to defend you interpretations of “love your enemy” and place them over your love for your wife (a point you've ignored) seems to seriously miss the mark (sin). Do you not think denying your responsibility to your wife is sinful?
Much is made of Peter's use of a sword in the Garden (as found in Matthew and Mark). However, a question is to the best of my knowledge never asked. Why did he have a sword in the first place? The answer I believe is found in Luke 22: 36, 38. However, the question as to why Our Lord had no need of Peter's sword is found in John 18: 5-6. Simply put, Our Lord protected Himself by revealing a bare glimmer of His Divinity. Peter was a bit hasty and premature in his actions.
Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 1 AM Pacific.
I cited the Edict of Milan as Constantine seems to be a bête noir for many Baptists for linking Church and State and Establishing Christianity as a state religion (actually it was Theodosius but most seems to have forgotten that). I used it therefore as a cut off point Before It All Went Wrong to ask a question about the practice of the earliest Christians: did they or did they not condone or proffer physical violence when it was proffered to them (and, by extension, how should that affect our behaviour today)? Like I said, I've been unable to find a single instance.
This thread is closed.
- Status