Did Jesus come to bring peace or not?

[sojourn4Christ]

Exactly how much of the Old Testament Law still applies to us today? ...I just want someone to show me—through scripture—the difference between these two laws.

...a very timely question for these end times! And I will reply to it as I have replied to all Scripture-based questions - I will compare Scripture with Scripture, spiritual with spiritual. Watch for an upcoming post here.

I find it a little more than interesting that you get so much of your information straight from the internet. Are you sure that the sites that you ... cite ... use only the Authorized King James Version?

Firstly, you presume that "so much of [my] information [is] straight from the internet." Secondly, via transference, you would equate internet information with The Word of God. Such transparent tactics won't fly here.

 

[Stickz]

sojourn4Christ: ...a very timely question for these end times! And I will reply to it as I have replied to all Scripture-based questions - I will compare Scripture with Scripture, spiritual with spiritual. ( And then look it up on the internet to see what someone else has already said about it, Copy & Pas— ) Watch for an upcoming post here.

sojourn4Christ: Firstly, you presume that "so much of [my] information [is] straight from the internet." Secondly, via transference, you would equate internet information with The Word of God. Such transparent tactics won't fly here.

sojourn4Christ: Fellow servants of Christ (e.g. Christ's assembly) will understand the following analogy. Primarily in the spiritual realm, a servant of Christ is a "type" of Police officer in the community, upholding God's Law which militates against the immorality and hedonism which can so easily overwhelm a society-lawlessness and anarchy. Even as a Police officer upholds the "law of the land," a follower of Christ, if he is faithful to God and His Word, upholds and defends God's Law contained therein. To be the "standard" against lawlessness, to protect the weak, to uphold the law, to "resist evil." That's the job and calling that they have been tasked with as well as what society expects of them. Opposing evil, standing against lawlessness and anarchy, is the very core of their vocation. That's the duty of carrying that badge. Our calling is to stand in opposition to the forces of darkness as well. Therefore, followers of Christ can proudly say they are an "officer of The Law" as well.

There are few civilians with the understanding, experience, and insight to possess the qualifications to understand fully, modern day Police work, let alone the unique dynamics and peculiar practices which entail the same. Most people, as civilians, view their local law enforcement officer with a bit of mystery and bewilderment, not having a clue as to what these people have to endure every day, the training they have to go through, the demands that are made on them through the whole chain of command.

Now concerning Christ's assembly, does "the world" understand His assembly and His ways? Is "the world" qualified to comment on spiritual things and the duties of Christ's assembly? Of course not. The Scripture clearly states: "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (I Corinthians 2:14). Post modernist, humanist, and secular thinkers view most religion as "superstitious" and "regressive," even "stone-age."

The bottom line is, just as the only people qualified to police a modern day professional law enforcement agency are other professionals (their peers), so, too, the only people qualified to effectively police Christ's assembly are other spiritual leaders in Christ's assembly.

ecclesia.org/truth/enforcement.html

Is it "presumption" when I've actually seen the sites that your posts have come from, sojourn?

 

[MsMree]

Hey Stickz, peace to you too brother

Exactly how much of the Old Testament Law still applies to us today? What I mean is—Why does this law

Exodus 22:2-3, "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."

still apply to us today? But this one

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

does not? Or, does it? Should we be putting each other to death for breaking the sabbath today? I just want someone to show me—through scripture—the difference between these two laws.

I often get very confused about this, and I'm sure I forget this often. But now that you ask me; my understanding is that there are 3 elements of OT law, ceremonial (offerings - fulfilled in Jesus), civil ("don't wear clothes of two different kinds of material", "this is what to do with mould", etc) and the moral (such as keeping the Sabbath rest - and the moral law is still useful in determining the moral will of God).

The purpose of all of the law was to hold Israel apart from the other people in the land in some way, either through their actions, appearance, or motivations. For example tattoos were generally applied in sinful cultures, accompanied by sinful practices with sinful meanings, I don't think the ink on skin per se is sinful, it's what was generally entailed in getting a tattoo, and what it represented to other people.

So, stealing, killing and breaking the Sabbath is as sinful as it always was, but "the sacrifice of God is a broken spirit and a contrite heart." - Psalm 51:17

Now let me write this on my forehead so that I myself do not forget!! Do not be surprised if this post contradicts previous posts I have made, as I say I have trouble remembering this. Please bring the contradictions to my attention so I can not remain in error, thank you all.

How do you feel about that Stickz? What are your beliefs regarding what of the law applies?

 

[sojourn4Christ]

self-defence

( And then look it up on the internet to see what someone else has already said about it, Copy & Pas— )

and

Is it "presumption" when I've actually seen the sites that your posts have come from, sojourn?

Is that the best you've got, Stickz?

It is irrelevant whether info posted here came from a dictionary or a dumpster! The relevant issue is: does it line up with the Word of God? That's all the born again believer must concern himself with.

Your attempts to divert the issue notwithstanding, let's put the character assassination attempts behind us and get back to the issue.

I am a little curious. We are focusing on self defence. What about defending others or our family ? Can anyone seriously say they would not protect their children from an attacker with any force necessary ?

Most are so confused, they don't have a clue as to how to deal with that. A problem, agua, is that the majority today (largely dispensationalists) are referencing corrupt "versions" of The Holy Bible which, for example, tell them to obey all things government (including the evil therein). When Hitler's troops knocked on doors late at night and took families off to concentrations camps, torture and death, they did nothing illegal. Those laws were on the books, and Hitler didn't seize power, he was elected. The ungodly authority always operates under the color of law - which is not the Law. There is a form of obedience which leads to death (Romans 6:16 KJV), so choose this day whom you will serve (Jos 24:15 KJV).

 

[Stickz]

sojourn4Christ: It is irrelevant whether info posted here came from a dictionary or a dumpster! The relevant issue is: does it line up with the Word of God? That's all the born again believer must concern himself with.

Were you worried about whether or not the scripture that MrsMree used in an earlier post actually lined up with the Word of God, or were you more concerned with where it came from? She even actually quoted from the KJV as well as the other translations, but your following post was an attack on where her information came from, was it not?

sojourn4Christ: This approach is, and always will be, problematic, because the poster is obviously not aware that ALL modern versions are taken from less than 1% (about 20) of the total available manuscripts (about 5000). This 0.4% minority was rejected from the Majority Text because it is corrupt. The point is, one can "prove" any doctrine they wish today when they reference these "per"-versions which are copyrighted and compiled by unsaved men and which tickle the flesh of both the simple and the would-be scholars.

sojourn, I don't personally care what you believe, but you are being a hypocrite when you argue against someone's post with a statement like this, and then turn around and get most of your own posts from places on the internet. The people that created these websites that you are frequenting, are they using only the Authorized King James Version of the Bible to come up with the information that they use on their sites? No. But it's okay for you to post it, right?

sojourn4Christ: Your attempts to divert the issue notwithstanding, let's put the character assassination attempts behind us and get back to the issue.

I'm not really trying to divert anything, I've already made my statement and the only person who thinks that I have to defend it is you. It's actually strong enough on it's own. Besides, you have this condescending way about you, and I'm no longer interested in having anymore discussions with you.

sojourn4Christ: Most are so confused, they don't have a clue as to how to deal with that. A problem, agua, is that the majority today (largely dispensationalists) are referencing corrupt "versions" of The Holy Bible which, for example, tell them to obey all things government (including the evil therein). When Hitler's troops knocked on doors late at night and took families off to concentrations camps, torture and death, they did nothing illegal. Those laws were on the books, and Hitler didn't seize power, he was elected. The ungodly authority always operates under the color of law - which is not the Law. There is a form of obedience which leads to death (Romans 6:16 KJV), so choose this day whom you will serve (Jos 24:15 KJV).

Belittlement? Is that the best that you got?

I'm not confused and I'm not a dispensationalist.

agua, do you read from an Authorized King James Bible that is not copyrighted?

sojourn, where in the KJV do you read that allows for you to not obey your government?

sojourn, are you suggesting that if someone reads from another translation of the Bible that they are sinning and cannot possibly have a saving relationship in Christ? With all of your statements about the Authorized version only, I'm just wanting you to clarify. You say that the other versions are so corrupt; are they so corrupt that most of us are lost souls? If not, why do you continue to keep bringing it up?

 

[sojourn4Christ]

2 Thess 2:10-12

This is my final post here re "bible versions." To avoid hijacking, any further comments/replies I may have re the "bible version" topic will be posted in the appropriate thread elsewhere.

She even actually quoted from the KJV as well as the other translations, but your following post was an attack on where her information came from, was it not?

It was not. No doubt she's sincere, yet strength does not come from a junk food diet. The pure truth is not to be found in the Holy Bible plus something else (i.e. the modern "version(s))." I pray she received the hint.

I find it a little more than interesting that you get so much of your information straight from the internet. Are you sure that the sites that you ... cite ... use only the Authorized King James Version?

and

sojourn, I don't personally care what you believe, but you are being a hypocrite when you argue against someone's post with a statement like this, and then turn around and get most of your own posts from places on the internet.

You're in error here, and on more than one count. Firstly, it's telling that you, a professed born again believer of Jesus Christ, "don't personally care what believe." Secondly, you continue to miss the mark by trying to equate one's rendition of "facts" with the Word of God. Again, where I might obtain information about the weather has NO correlation with the immutable Word of God, i.e. the Holy Bible. This childish diversion bodes poorly for you. I do, however, understand why you're doing it and that's because I rebuked you previously with Scripture. Recall our exchange:

Sometimes, I like to compare...

For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise. (2 Cor 10:12).

Are you saying that you never look at anything else? Ever?

I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes... (Psa 10:3).

...Take heed what ye hear... (Mark 4:24).

Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen... (Jer 10:2).

Then you proceeded to introduce your "Baasha Connection " diversion...

The fact remains, you have yet to focus on the gist of my posts and answer to the charge I placed re: corrupt "versions" of the Word of God.

That the modern so-called versions are corrupt is demonstrable, researchable fact of which you and others are presently ignorant.

I'm not confused and I'm not a dispensationalist

In any case, if one is a pre-trib "rapturist," then one is a dispensationalist by definition.

sojourn, where in the KJV do you read that allows for you to not obey your government?

"...your government"? Since there is one form of obedience which leads to death (Rom 6:16 KJV), indeed WHICH purported government is it that YOU would obey? (BTW, "government" is not found in Romans 13 KJV. The correct phrase is "higher powers" which, of course, does not include satan.)

Authority is only valid to the degree that it comes from the Lord. When the evil are placed in a position of authority, the children of the king are to "resist the devil, and he shall flee from you" (Jam 4:7).

sojourn, are you suggesting that if someone reads from another translation of the Bible that they are sinning and cannot possibly have a saving relationship in Christ?

What a ridiculous question. You're still in denial of my rebuke, and/or you are truly completely unaware of the enemy's tactics via the modern copyrighted per-"versions."

With all of your statements about the Authorized version only, I'm just wanting you to clarify. You say that the other versions are so corrupt; are they so corrupt that most of us are lost souls?

Another dubious question, but I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. But surely we can't well fight a spiritual battle when our diet consists of new age junk food.

If not, why do you continue to keep bringing it up?

The question before us has not been "why do continue to keep bringing it up," rather, why do you, a "versions" reader who is into "comparing," keep trying to avoid the "versions" issue?

The Lord says, Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. (Pro 9:8 KJV). I pray you are the latter and not the former, Stickz.

 

[Stickz]

sojourn4Christ

You: In any case, if one is a pre-trib "rapturist," then one is a dispensationalist by definition.

Where did you get the idea that I believe in the pretribulation rapture? I actually have posts where I have spoken against it, if you would bother to look. I think that qualifies as presumption, don't you?

You: It was not. No doubt she's sincere, yet strength does not come from a junk food diet. The pure truth is not to be found in the Holy Bible plus something else (i.e. the modern "version(s))." I pray she received the hint.

The pure truth shouldn't be found in the Holy Bible plus the internet either. The pure truth can only come from God, and if you truly have a relationship with God it doesn't matter which version of the Bible you are reading out of, my friend. I haven't debated with you about your claims of the Authorized Version of the King James Bible because there is nothing to debate. Your claims are exactly that, claims. What about someone who can't read at all, are they lost by default? The Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the Geneva are hardly modern, and I use those too.

You: You're in error here, and on more than one count. Firstly, it's telling that you, a professed born again believer of Jesus Christ, "don't personally care what believe." Secondly, you continue to miss the mark by trying to equate one's rendition of "facts" with the Word of God. Again, where I might obtain information about the weather has NO correlation with the immutable Word of God, i.e. the Holy Bible. This childish diversion bodes poorly for you. I do, however, understand why you're doing it and that's because I rebuked you previously with Scripture. Recall our exchange:

According to the version of the Bible that I read from, I am not obligated to worry about what you believe to this ridiculous degree. I don't really remember accusing you of getting bad weather reports from anywhere. And I actually do find it a little humorous that you keep accusing me of acting diversive. As for you rebuking me: LOL

You: Then you proceeded to introduce your "Baasha Connection " diversion...

I used the Baasha question to see how you would answer it using only the KJV, but wasn't actually expecting you to Copy and Paste your answer directly from another website, making it that obvious that you didn't draw your conclusion from just the KJV and your relationship with the Father. You trusted another man. See, all along I was answering your questions, just not in the way that you were expecting me to.

You: The fact remains, you have yet to focus on the gist of my posts and answer to the charge I placed re: corrupt "versions" of the Word of God.

That the modern so-called versions are corrupt is demonstrable, researchable fact of which you and others are presently ignorant.

The translators of the KJV used the Bishop's Bible, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Geneva and the Great Bible. They also used the Masoretic Texts and the Greek Septuagint. And I also refer to some of these.

You: "...your government"? Since there is one form of obedience which leads to death (Rom 6:16 KJV), indeed WHICH purported government is it that YOU would obey? (BTW, "government" is not found in Romans 13 KJV. The correct phrase is "higher powers" which, of course, does not include satan.)

Authority is only valid to the degree that it comes from the Lord. When the evil are placed in a position of authority, the children of the king are to "resist the devil, and he shall flee from you" (Jam 4:7).

I used the word government because you did. My version also uses "higher powers".

Acts 23:1 And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.

Acts 23:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

Acts 23:4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

Acts 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK EVIL OF THE RULER OF THY PEOPLE.

You:
Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border: 1px inset;" class="alt2"> sojourn, are you suggesting that if someone reads from another translation of the Bible that they are sinning and cannot possibly have a saving relationship in Christ? </td></tr></tbody></table>
What a ridiculous question. You're still in denial of my rebuke, and/or you are truly completely unaware of the enemy's tactics via the modern copyrighted per-"versions."

If we are in no danger, sojourn, why the need to "rebuke" at all?

You: Another dubious question, but I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. But surely we can't well fight a spiritual battle when our diet consists of new age junk food.

I think that I'm doing pretty good for now with the spiritual battle, thanks. But, now that you see that I use the same versions that the translators of the KJV used, will you leave me alone about it? Thanks.

 

[Kit Carson]

I look at it like Chad does.
One has to see the words and reason behind the words.

One may believe and follow God, others in a family may not. Yes if we allow it it can split a family up. You see we let our own way enter into things and do not stop and think.

But with patience, understanding and Gods word all things are possible.

Hey it is possible in my family, not all believe in God like I do, but I do not let it become an issue, I do not push them, I just try to set an example, it becomes a situation where one realizes there is much better to come , that we do not understand all, and if we let our own fears and jealousy and way enter into it all, get mad, push them away and act the fool......then such things can happen.

The wisdom behind the words.....simply looks forward and tells us what can be.

Will we be attacked , made fun of, killed, tortured due to those who wish to conquer God.....you bet. This is what Jesus was telling us.

Kit

 

[Beans]

Thanks for getting us back on track Kit!

Regarding self defense. I think that Jesus did mean for us to follow his example of dying on the cross. Not that our deaths would have anywhere near the same power as his does. When Jesus said, "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" he is talking about us being a living testimony of God's love to those who hate us and persecute us. Just look at the martyrs.
Sojourn was saying that we are obligated to defend ourselves. I don't agree with that. I think love your enemies, means love your enemies!

However, things become complicated when other innocent people are involved. We also have an obligation to be a testimony of God's love to them. We are then forced to decide between loving our attackers and loving innocent people (our wives and kids, neighbours, etc). In my mind, the attacker had just dropped down on my priorities, and I would choose to take his life (if necessary) to protect others.

But that is a far cry from carrying weapons or forming millitias. I can't see that that fits into NT Christianity at all. If you want to go back to the OT concept of earthly kingdoms and defending them, then that up to you. I want to be part of the Kingdom of Heaven, that is not of this world, and does not need to be defended by carnal weapons!

Peace (and love) Beans.

 

[my_little_pony]

However, things become complicated when other innocent people are involved. We also have an obligation to be a testimony of God's love to them. We are then forced to decide between loving our attackers and loving innocent people (our wives and kids, neighbours, etc). In my mind, the attacker had just dropped down on my priorities, and I would choose to take his life (if necessary) to protect others.

Hi beans. Good observation. If I were in a situation where a guy with a machine guy was mowing down a crowd of people, I wouldn't feel bad about throwing a rock at his head or something. Ideally, I wouldn't want to kill him, but maybe knock him out or even call his attention to me (i.e. willing to be shot) so that others could get away while he's distracted.

In a situation where I'm being mugged and the thieves want to beat me I would have a difficult time NOT trying to hold my hands over my head as some sort of protection, but if the circumstances were different and I was being beaten specifically because of my faith, I think I would fee a bit more inspired about not trying to defend myself (particularly if others are looking on and the situation could be used as a witness to inspire them, too).

I remember watching a movie about the life of Gandhi, starring Ben Kingsly. In the movie a reporter asked Gandhi about his pacifist stance and how something like that would work regarding a man like Hitler. The reporter said of Gandhi's insistence that fighting would not solve the problem, "don't you think a lot of people would die if we didn't defend ourselves?" and Gandhi replied, "aren't a lot of people already dying [trying to defend ourselves]"?

 

[Peace Seeker]

Regarding self defense. I think that Jesus did mean for us to follow his example of dying on the cross. Not that our deaths would have anywhere near the same power as his does. When Jesus said, "love your enemies" and "turn the other cheek" he is talking about us being a living testimony of God's love to those who hate us and persecute us. Just look at the martyrs.

I agree about that we should be a living testimony and that we are an example of God's love when we love even our persecutors. Also that love can overcome evil and evil can never overcome evil.

However, a more historical context to Jesus' words can be made. In the culture Jesus was speaking in, it was common for Roman soldiers, or others in authority to strike a lower-class person's face with the back of the hand as a display of dominance and authority. The right hand was always used, just as when they performed a Roman salute with their right arm, etc.
Apparently, the left hand was never used for anything but "unclean" purposes, and as such was never equated with power and authority like the right hand was. The bible talks exclusively about God's right hand too, so there is something to the concept of power being in the right hand.

Therefore, if the striker could only use the back of his right hand, when the other cheek was turned it would not be an option for him to strike the victim again with the back of his left hand.

I don't know if Jesus' purpose was to protect his people from getting hit more than once, or maybe more likely it was a way for the victim to nonviolently stand up to the authority of the striker and take away his perceived control over him. But without it looking like a direct defiance of the assailant's authority, because the victim was in all appearances looking like he was submitting.

Either way, we are called to be peace makers and to love our enemies.

 

[my_little_pony]

Therefore, if the striker could only use the back of his right hand, when the other cheek was turned it would not be an option for him to strike the victim again with the back of his left hand.

Hey pm, interesting theory. For me, I am a bit more inclined to see a lesson about a willingness to be hit for the sake of a witness to others, even if it's just the person doing the hitting.

No one likes to be hit. It's completely unnatural. All of our natural instincts tell us to flinch or to put our hands up as a block or to duck etc. The idea of just standing there and taking ANOTHER hit is totally ridiculous, but I believe it is this totally unnatural response to violence which IS the witness in itself.

Why would someone just willingly stand there and take more abuse when he/she could run away, or cower, or try to block etc? What motivates this person to do something so unnatural?

The idea of "turn the other cheek" communicates that, not only are you willing to be hit again, but that you are actually INVITING another hit. It is the REASON for why someone would do something so unnatural that justifies the pain of being hit again.

I believe that reason is that we WANT people to understand that we are willing to die for our faith. We want people to understand that this physical body means very, very ,very little in comparison to eternal life.

They can beat us all they like, and, if it takes beating us to death to prove the point, it's still worth it.

 

[Tribulation]

Jesus brought a sword that a man's enemy are those of his own household.

I see it like this. Lets say you live in America. And you don't like the direction the government is going in... (sound familiar?)

You're watching all the RICH company owners & politicians cash in on peoples homes being foreclosed on. You're out of work. And your about to be homeless.

BUT... your father, or brother works for the government or police dept. And tells you tuff luck, do what the government tells you to do.
And they don't help you at all... in fact they take up for the government instead of you.

So then... things start getting so bad that Martial Law is coming. And your dad or brother says protecting the politicians that run the government are more important than you.

So they start arresting peaceful protesters, and beat unarmed civilians with sticks.

But you trust in Jesus (not in some government), and know in your heart they are wrong. At what point do they become your enemy?

This is just one instance for Mat 10:36 "a mans enemies will be those of his own household"

 

[Peace Seeker]

Hey pm, interesting theory. For me, I am a bit more inclined to see a lesson about a willingness to be hit for the sake of a witness to others, even if it's just the person doing the hitting.

The idea of "turn the other cheek" communicates that, not only are you willing to be hit again, but that you are actually INVITING another hit.
I believe that reason is that we WANT people to understand that we are willing to die for our faith. We want people to understand that this physical body means very, very ,very little in comparison to eternal life.
They can beat us all they like, and, if it takes beating us to death to prove the point, it's still worth it.

I agree with everything you've said in your post. And as I said, turning the cheek to the oppressor is, like you said, INVITING another hit, yet at the same time resisting authority while looking like he is submitting to it. A master tactic by THE MASTER who told us to do it!

 

[pie_man]

Hey pm, interesting theory. For me, I am a bit more inclined to see a lesson about a willingness to be hit for the sake of a witness to others, even if it's just the person doing the hitting.

No one likes to be hit. It's completely unnatural. All of our natural instincts tell us to flinch or to put our hands up as a block or to duck etc. The idea of just standing there and taking ANOTHER hit is totally ridiculous, but I believe it is this totally unnatural response to violence which IS the witness in itself.

Why would someone just willingly stand there and take more abuse when he/she could run away, or cower, or try to block etc? What motivates this person to do something so unnatural?

The idea of "turn the other cheek" communicates that, not only are you willing to be hit again, but that you are actually INVITING another hit. It is the REASON for why someone would do something so unnatural that justifies the pain of being hit again.

I believe that reason is that we WANT people to understand that we are willing to die for our faith. We want people to understand that this physical body means very, very ,very little in comparison to eternal life.

They can beat us all they like, and, if it takes beating us to death to prove the point, it's still worth it.

Hi Pony. I agree. But I think that turning the other cheek is a form of rebellion. It says to the oppressor that you have something that they cannot take away. It says that even though you can't control what happens to you, you can control how you respond to it. And that kind of rebellion is more dangerous than rebellion that fights fire with fire.

I also saw the movie about Gandhi and what I liked about it was that he totaly turned the tables on the British. They tried to make him out as a dangerous criminal, but through his discipline and self sacrifice he showed how barbaric and unfair the colonial system was and claimed the higher moral ground.

 

[PerfectIsJesus]

Now here's some interesting scripture:


Like Joshua,David said Jesus has to come first. I don't think Jesus really wants us to actually HATE our families,, but they sure will throw that in your face when they see that they no longer take first place in your priorities. But I think that is a legitimate "sword" of division that Jesus calls us to bear (Luke 12:51-53).

I as well encounter hostility with my family. It's not that they don't love me... they don't love Christ and it's me they take it out on because I am one with Christ. I've been told I am part of a cult, I've been brainwashed, I need to quit copying what other people do... I've heard a lot. Do I hate my family? no. But they hate Christ and I hear about it all the time.

 

[paganmystic]

Sweet. Yes we have, insight into the thoughts of others, an explaination if you will. Since Jesus went through the torment from is community, family and friends he could honestly tell us what to expect.

In John we are told we will be hated too. It was told to us in Matthew, simply because we put the the Lord and our Father's kingdom before all else. If they (our families and friends) understood they would be greater people if they accepted what we understand. It would much easier for everyone. But not those that claim to love us because they know better. Well these warnings were given to us so we will be prepared for the resistance we will face.

Of course he came to bring peace; it is our attitude and ability to take things out of context and preach on it that Jesus understood all too well.

 

[Kit Carson]

As I tried to say before, to me Jesus meant when he said he did not come to bring peace , but he came to bring a sword simply means to me that he is looking ahead.

We would all have peace and harmony if all would follow him, but as not all will follow him, naturally this will bring conflict, resentment, and maybe even downright disrespect and even death by another family member.

So Jesus did not come to create disharmony and to actually bring a sword, he simply means that our own unwillingness to accept him will create the sword. That man himself will be the one to create the disharmony.

It is not so bad, not everyone in my family believes in God, but if handled intelligently and with compassion and not taken personally hey, they learn, you cannot tell Kit anything he will just grin at you and tell you that you are wrong. That little puppy you liked so well the other day is one of Gods creations........can you make a puppy??
With time opportunity for discussion will always open up, at first they scoff, they push, they tell you that you are an idiot.......slowly they wonder why does he persist?? And one day, the non believer becomes the believer.

To me to turn the other cheek is kinda like this. It is not about being a doormat or to turn away as a coward, or to accept without challenge.

Say I and you are in town and a person is holding up a sign, will work for food, or some such. So I do a U turn and find a safe place to park and to talk to him and tell him to come to the grocery store with me and I will buy him some food. I have no work but I will buy you something to eat............and you attack me. You tell me I am being taken advantage of, or you tell me hey I am in a hurry and you should have just given him some money, let him use his time. At this point it is a challenge of personalities. So I will accept the challenge but be somewhat of a pusher also. I will tell you that even if I am being taken advantage of, the intent is true, I will tell you that your time is not a concern, what are you going to do when you do get home, watch T.V.?? I will attack you, but not in a violent way. I will intend you no harm, but I will not back down on my convictions. Each time you challenge me I will simply tell you that you are wrong and should show compassion. That your statement of you are in a hurry and do not want to waste time is selfish. I may even walk more slowly.........I will challenge you . So to me Jesus is saying, turn the other cheek but by doing so with no intent of malice also show them the other cheek and challenge them. If they want to fuss with you for a mile, give them two. Or.........a politician says, poor me, we are having to do so much more with so much less. We lost our cost of living raise, and this is totally unfair. ......without violence I will challenge him and tell him you should be happy to have a position, as we the citizen are now living with very much less to support your very much more and your unwise use of our money. If he wants to push a mile, I will push back for two.........

As for violence and self defense, naturally revenge or to do after the fact or take justice into your own hands is wrong, and will only lead to not only violation of Gods morals, but also violation of the laws of men and resulting punishment by mans laws.

But if a thug is beating a old lady to steal her purse, or is in the act of taking a child, or is committing a robbery, or is beating on my door to do harm and mayhem, ........well I have only one thing to say, they had best be right with God, because I will send them to see him.

I have as much compassion for those who commit violent crimes and due physical harm to others, as I do for a cockroach. During the commission of the crime. But God says to leave justice after the fact to himself. To not seek revenge or to walk into sin yourself to seek revenge. That to me is Gods message, do not exact revenge, leave that to me. No matter how unfair you think it seems you can only hurt yourself with actions after the fact.

So to act in the actual time of the event, to or for self defense is fine, to act later for revenge is not good. This is both against the law of God and the law of man. It does no good in any event as the act or situation has already occurred and you cannot change what was and what is.

Hope I made some sense.

Kit

 

[Beans]

I as well encounter hostility with my family. It's not that they don't love me... they don't love Christ and it's me they take it out on because I am one with Christ. I've been told I am part of a cult, I've been brainwashed, I need to quit copying what other people do... I've heard a lot. Do I hate my family? no. But they hate Christ and I hear about it all the time.

Hi Perfect.
That's exactly right. It's not that our families don't love us. In fact it is the opposite, they fight so hard against Christ in us, because they love US (i.e. our old self) and they start to panic when they see radical changes in us.
I think what can often give our families the FEELING that we don't love them is because we love Christ MORE and also because of the fact that we have become part of a SPIRITUAL family, that may or may not include them.
Then on top of that is the fact that throughout your childhood you accepted them as the ultimate authority on right and wrong, and now your are turning to a new authority for the answers. I can understand it being kinda hard for them to swallow.
Anyway, I think that the bottom line is that (in our hearts) we should not "hate" anyone, but that from our family's perspective we could look like we are treating them poorly because of our efforts to follow Christ and I think that the spirit of Luke 14:26 is that we should not allow that to stop us.