Was St. Paul a liar and deceiver?

[Shermana]

Jesus did not say to not take up the sword, he said he who LIVES by the sword will die by it. The meaning of that is more or less "He who uses the sword where he shouldn't".

With that said, he explicitly instructed his disciples to sell their own cloaks if they couldn't afford swords. The fact that he said that only Two "will be enough" indicates that he's referring indeed to every traveling party having adequate protection, if you're by yourself, you'd still need one. Why would he tell his disciples to do that? Just to admonish Peter who struck the Servant without due cause? Peter's admonishing had nothing to do with using swords altogether, it was using the sword against someone who didn't impose an unjustified or unwarranted threat. He was after all in the authority of the Priest to arrest Jesus.

Second, to take up the Mosaic Law is not to deny Jesus, to DENY the Mosaic Law is to deny Jesus. It's amazing how the things Jesus taught directly get tossed out in favor of this quasi-idolism. There is absolutely no way to reject the Mosaic Law and live in harmony with Christ. How is that even possible? To reject Mosaic Law is to reject Christ's own words.

Third, priests are not allowed to marry divorced women. And there are manuscript issues involved with what exactly Jesus taught about divorce. If the disciples are now Priests in the order of Malchezdiek, kinda doesn't conflict with what Jesus taught, since he was really only teaching such to those who followed him.

I'm still waiting for a response to Acts 21. Funny how much that subject gets dodged.

 

[Ken Brown]

Jesus did not say to not take up the sword, he said he who LIVES by the sword will die by it. The meaning of that is more or less "He who uses the sword where he shouldn't".

With that said, he explicitly instructed his disciples to sell their own cloaks if they couldn't afford swords. The fact that he said that only Two "will be enough" indicates that he's referring indeed to every traveling party having adequate protection, if you're by yourself, you'd still need one. Why would he tell his disciples to do that? Just to admonish Peter who struck the Servant without due cause? Peter's admonishing had nothing to do with using swords altogether, it was using the sword against someone who didn't impose an unjustified or unwarranted threat. He was after all in the authority of the Priest to arrest Jesus.

Second, to take up the Mosaic Law is not to deny Jesus, to DENY the Mosaic Law is to deny Jesus. It's amazing how the things Jesus taught directly get tossed out in favor of this quasi-idolism. There is absolutely no way to reject the Mosaic Law and live in harmony with Christ. How is that even possible? To reject Mosaic Law is to reject Christ's own words.

Third, priests are not allowed to marry divorced women. And there are manuscript issues involved with what exactly Jesus taught about divorce. If the disciples are now Priests in the order of Malchezdiek, kinda doesn't conflict with what Jesus taught, since he was really only teaching such to those who followed him.

I'm still waiting for a response to Acts 21. Funny how much that subject gets dodged.

Hi Shermana, who might you be speaking to here? Is it to anyone who wants to answer you?

I also want to apologize again for last night. I was searching for a reference to "house" and low and behold that Scripture in Deuteronomy came up. Foolish of me wasn't it to not read it in context? And not making excuses, I have a wife that is very jealous of my posting time, and I have a father that requires much attention, which I was trying to give him when I was posting to you. shame on me.

Now, concerning the sword, isn't it the Word of G-d? Those who live by the Word will also die by the Word. Is that what you are saying? KB

 

[Shermana]

No, Jesus was referring to Literal swords. (Armaments in general)

Unless you think Peter sliced off the servant's ear with the sharpness of his words. And that he instructed his disciples to sell their garments if they had to buy a copy of each and every scroll of every canonical text at the time, which a garment most likely wouldn't be able to cover the costs of. You gotta ask yourself "Why would Jesus say this during an admonishment of Peter for hastily and rashly using the sword when he shouldn't have" and "Why would Jesus be talking about the Word during such an admonishment about his use of a sword".

Again, I highly recommend you make sure your position has been stated before, before attempting to rebut. If you can find a single website that thinks Jesus was referring to the Word and not literal swords in that passage, please do post it for us.

I also recommend you make sure you read the whole chapter to make sure you're understanding the context of the passage, because otherwise some extremely wacky interpretations like this can result. There's no way to read it and get that Jesus is referring to anything but literal weapons. Not having much time is not an excuse for taking the time to read what you're attempting to rebut.

 

[Pegg]

Let me ask you this: do you think that Jewish believers are still required to follow the law of Moses?

the righteous moral standards of that law, yes. And by those, i mean the laws that existed since the beginning of mans creation....the laws that we instinctively know are right and wrong.

the regulations, festivals, observances etc, no. There is no priesthood, therefore much of the law cannot be practiced or participated in. And there are some laws that Christ himself did away with such as polygamy and military service.

 

[Ken Brown]

No, Jesus was referring to Literal swords. (Armaments in general)

Unless you think Peter sliced off the servant's ear with the sharpness of his words. And that he instructed his disciples to sell their garments if they had to buy a copy of each and every scroll of every canonical text at the time, which a garment most likely wouldn't be able to cover the costs of. You gotta ask yourself "Why would Jesus say this during an admonishment of Peter for hastily and rashly using the sword when he shouldn't have" and "Why would Jesus be talking about the Word during such an admonishment about his use of a sword".

Again, I highly recommend you make sure your position has been stated before, before attempting to rebut. If you can find a single website that thinks Jesus was referring to the Word and not literal swords in that passage, please do post it for us.

I also recommend you make sure you read the whole chapter to make sure you're understanding the context of the passage, because otherwise some extremely wacky interpretations like this can result. There's no way to read it and get that Jesus is referring to anything but literal weapons. Not having much time is not an excuse for taking the time to read what you're attempting to rebut.

Hi Shermana, I do respect your knowledge of the Scriptures, and I in no way want to make you an enemy.

I would appreciate that you give a salutation to me IF you are speaking with me, it could be "Hi KB," or "Shalom Ken," or even just "Hey Brown." Something would be nice from you to show you are speaking with me. Now, I know from your response above that you ARE speaking to me, so I will respond.

Now, I had to leave from posting this and I have just spent the last hour with my father and I really have to be getting down to my wife. So I will have to pick this back up later. KB

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Jesus did not say to not take up the sword, he said he who LIVES by the sword will die by it. The meaning of that is more or less "He who uses the sword where he shouldn't".

The Greek doesn't reflect this at all. Can you point to a single line in ancient Greek texts in which λαβόντες (or the verb this participle derives from) is used to mean "live"?

 

[Shermana]

You're right, he says "Draw/take the sword". Good call.

Either way, in context of Luke 22:36, he's most likely not saying that anyone who draws the sword regardless of reason will die by it.

There are plenty of people who have used armaments before who didn't get kiled by armaments for one thing.

 

[Pegg]

You're right, he says "Draw/take the sword". Good call.

Either way, in context of Luke 22:36, he's most likely not saying that anyone who draws the sword regardless of reason will die by it.

There are plenty of people who have used armaments before who didn't get kiled by armaments for one thing.

shermana,

what did Jesus say when one of his disciples actually used his sword on that night?
Was it not: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than twelve legions of angels?

Obviously he did not ask them to carry a weapon for protection or self-defense. Rather, their having swords on hand on the night of his betrayal made it possible for Jesus to teach them a vital lesson: “All those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.

 

[Shermana]

shermana,

what did Jesus say when one of his disciples actually used his sword on that night?
Was it not: “Return your sword to its place, for all those who take the sword will perish by the sword. 53 Or do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father to supply me at this moment more than twelve legions of angels?

Obviously he did not ask them to carry a weapon for protection or self-defense. Rather, their having swords on hand on the night of his betrayal made it possible for Jesus to teach them a vital lesson: “All those who take the sword will perish by the sword.”

By this logic, you're saying Jesus lied because there are plenty of people who have used a weapon in self defense who didn't die by being killed by a weapon.

The lesson was about him, not his believers. He didn't need defense because he could call on 12 legions of angels.

Meanwhile, this would also be a dramatic break from God calling on the Israelites to go to battle for one thing.

Other countries would be quite happy for their neighbors to give up all their weapons.

 

[Pegg]

By this logic, you're saying Jesus lied because there are plenty of people who have used a weapon in self defense who didn't die by being killed by a weapon.

The lesson was about him, not his believers. He didn't need defense because he could call on 12 legions of angels.

and yet Jesus didnt call on defenses to protect him from his enemies.

when they hit him, he did not strike back in return. That was the lesson...'love your enemy and continue to pray for those persecuting you"

Jesus lived by those words as his actions on that night show. And christians got the point....the first 300 years of chrsitianity is known for their refusal to join the armies.
Obviously they took his words to heart and also lived by his teachings, but the same cannot be said of christians today unfortunately. If they did, their would be a lot less bloodshed.

 

[Desert Snake]

and yet Jesus didnt call on defenses to protect him from his enemies.

when they hit him, he did not strike back in return. That was the lesson...'love your enemy and continue to pray for those persecuting you"

Jesus lived by those words as his actions on that night show. And christians got the point....the first 300 years of chrsitianity is known for their refusal to join the armies.
Obviously they took his words to heart and also lived by his teachings, but the same cannot be said of christians today unfortunately. If they did, their would be a lot less bloodshed.

Pegg I agree with your interpretation on this, in fact I had never really known the context of that saying, it makes much more sense when examined properly

 

[Shermana]

and yet Jesus didnt call on defenses to protect him from his enemies.

when they hit him, he did not strike back in return. That was the lesson...'love your enemy and continue to pray for those persecuting you"

Jesus lived by those words as his actions on that night show. And christians got the point....the first 300 years of chrsitianity is known for their refusal to join the armies.
Obviously they took his words to heart and also lived by his teachings, but the same cannot be said of christians today unfortunately. If they did, their would be a lot less bloodshed.

1. You totally ignored what I said about how you're saying Jesus lied, since many (i.e. most, nearly all) people who have used weapons in combat or self defense have NOT died from wounds of weapons.

2. I already said that Jesus didn't call to be defended because it was part of his plan, and that it was him who could call on 12 legions of angels. Why even mention the 12 legions? He was talking about the protection of his disciples.

Try again.

 

[NIX]

He certainly isn't an engaging character.

 

[Pegg]

1. You totally ignored what I said about how you're saying Jesus lied, since many (i.e. most, nearly all) people who have used weapons in combat or self defense have NOT died from wounds of weapons.

2. I already said that Jesus didn't call to be defended because it was part of his plan, and that it was him who could call on 12 legions of angels. Why even mention the 12 legions? He was talking about the protection of his disciples.

Try again.

im glad you understand what Jesus really meant.

Perhaps if you had lived back then, the christain congregation could have learned a lot from you and they could have saved themselves all the trouble and persecution their stance led them to.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg I agree with your interpretation on this, in fact I had never really known the context of that saying, it makes much more sense when examined properly

glad you got the point.

Just think, its not until everyone puts down their weapons that the wars stop. So Jesus words really hit to the heart of the problem. Peace has to start on an individual level... a person who wants peace, must become peaceful even when provoked.

And if someone can't stand to be persecuted so that they feel the need to strike back, then they are weak. Its always true that it takes a stronger person to walk away from a fight. Remember Jesus words....
"For whoever wants to save his soul will lose it; but whoever loses his soul for the sake of me and the good news will save it.” Mark 8:34, 35

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

the righteous moral standards of that law, yes. And by those, i mean the laws that existed since the beginning of mans creation....the laws that we instinctively know are right and wrong.

the regulations, festivals, observances etc, no. There is no priesthood, therefore much of the law cannot be practiced or participated in. And there are some laws that Christ himself did away with such as polygamy and military service.

Thank you for your answer. I can see your point. Let me ask you this, though: if the priesthood were reinstated in Judaism, would the law of Moses, in your opinion, be necessary to re-institute?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Were there any early Christian communities in the first century that advocated an type of armed resistance?

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Some posts have been moderated. Please keep in mind rules 1, 3, 8 and 11 as mentioned before in this thread.

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

3. Trolling and Bullying
We recognize three areas of unacceptable trolling:
1)Posts that are deliberately inflammatory in order to provoke a vehement response from other users. This includes both verbal statements and images. Images that are likely to cause offense based on religious objections (e.g. depictions of Muhammad or Baha'u'llah) or the sensitive nature of what is depicted (e.g. graphic photos of violence) should be put in appropriately-labeled spoiler tags so that the viewer has freedom to view the image or not. Such images are still subject to normal forum rules and may be moderated depending on their contents.
2)Posts that target a person or group by following them around the forums to attack them. This is Bullying. Deliberately altering the words of another member by intentionally changing the meaning when you use the quote feature is considered a form of bullying. The ONLY acceptable alteration of a quotation from another member is to remove portions that are not relevant or to alter formatting for emphasis.
3)Posts that are adjudged to fit the following profile: "While questioning and challenging other beliefs is appropriate in the debates forums, blatant misrepresentation or harassment of other beliefs will not be tolerated."

8. Preaching/Proselytizing
The forums are not to be used for converting others to your own faith, against any faith, or recruiting people to join one's party, institution, or cause. This includes placing links or copied material from elsewhere intended for this purpose. Posts of this nature will be edited or removed and are subject to moderation.

11. Subverting/Undermining the forum Mission
The purpose of the forum is to provide a civil, informative, respectful and welcoming environment where people of diverse beliefs can discuss, compare and debate. Posts while debating and discussing different beliefs must be done in the spirit of productivity. If a person's main goal is to undermine a set of beliefs by creating unproductive posts/threads/responses to others, etc, then they will be edited or removed and subject to moderation.

 

[Pegg]

Thank you for your answer. I can see your point. Let me ask you this, though: if the priesthood were reinstated in Judaism, would the law of Moses, in your opinion, be necessary to re-institute?

yw.

If God reinstated it, then yes of course. And we would go along with whatever God instituted.

But the fact is that Jews and the rest of the world already have a high priest and a royal priesthood. Jesus Christ became the high priest when he entered the 'Most Holies' in heaven.
Hebrews chapters 7-10 are so important in understanding this. Paul relates a prophecy about the Messiah from the Pslams. It says:

Psalm 110:4-5 4 Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret):
“You are a priest to time indefinite
According to the manner of Mel·chiz′e·dek!”
5 Jehovah himself at your right hand
Will certainly break kings to pieces on the day of his anger

Paul explains how this prophecy applies to Jesus.
Heb 7:1 For this Mel·chiz′e·dek, king of Sa′lem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him 2 and to whom Abraham apportioned a tenth from all things, is first of all, by translation, “King of Righteousness,” and is then also king of Sa′lem, that is, “King of Peace.” 3 In being fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither a beginning of days nor an end of life, but having been made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
4 BEHOLD, then, how great this man was to whom Abraham, the family head, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. 5 True, the men from the sons of Le′vi who receive their priestly office have a commandment to collect tithes from the people according to the Law, that is, from their brothers, even if these have issued from the loins of Abraham; 6 but the man who did not trace his genealogy from them took tithes from Abraham and blessed him who had the promises. 7 Now without any dispute, the less is blessed by the greater. 8 And in the one case it is men who are dying that receive tithes, but in the other case it is someone of whom it is witnessed that he lives. 9 And, if I may use the expression, through Abraham even Le′vi who receives tithes has paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his forefather when Mel·chiz′e·dek met him.
11 If, then, perfection were really through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it as a feature the people were given the Law,) what further need would there be for another priest to arise according to the manner of Mel·chiz′e·dek and not said to be according to the manner of Aaron? 12 For since the priesthood is being changed, there comes to be of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For the man respecting whom these things are said has been a member of another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. 14 For it is quite plain that our Lord has sprung up out of Judah, a tribe about which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
15 And it is still more abundantly clear that with a similarity to Mel·chiz′e·dek there arises another priest, 16 who has become such, not according to the law of a commandment depending upon the flesh (mosiac law), but according to the power of an indestructible life, 17 for in witness it is said: “You are a priest forever according to the manner of Mel·chiz′e·dek.”
18 Certainly, then, there occurs a setting aside of the preceding commandment on account of its weakness and ineffectiveness. 19 For the Law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in besides of a better hope did, through which we are drawing near to God. 20 Also, to the extent that it was not without a sworn oath, 21 (for there are indeed men that have become priests without a sworn oath, but there is one with an oath sworn by the One who said respecting him: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret), ‘You are a priest forever,’”) 22 to that extent also Jesus has become the one given in pledge of a better covenant. 23 Furthermore, many had to become priests [in succession] because of being prevented by death from continuing as such, 24 but he because of continuing alive forever has his priesthood without any successors. 25 Consequently he is able also to save completely those who are approaching God through him, because he is always alive to plead for them.


Really, for Christians to put faith in the Messiah, they must put faith in the fact that this Messiah is acting as the High Priest...as a mediator between God and Man just as the Levitical Priesthood did. And as Paul explains in Vs 12-14, with a new coventor comes new laws because Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi or a son of Aaron... he is from the kingly line of the tribe of Judah and there are no set of instructions within the mosaic law for how a person from the tribe of Judah is to officiate as a priest..... so something new has been arranged.

and to hold onto the mosiac law would demonstrate a lack of faith in Jesus role as the Messiah and High Priest... "he pleads for us" and we are told to put faith in his words found at John 14:13 Also, whatever it is that YOU ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in connection with the Son. 14 If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.