In Christianity, There is no conclusive, coherent, system that justifies killing in self defense with a firearm.
The use of deadly force, in the event of a break in, has to be accepted as a possibility, when owning a firearm, and is irreconcilable under the new covenant theology, turning the other cheek, alms for the poor, and following the path of jesus.
The Greek work phoneuó is used in the Bible. Phoneuó has two meanings, murder and kill. In the earliest version of the manuscripts in the Bible, there is no conclusive differentiate of which context is used. It's possible the context is kill, and not murder. Jesus said, turn the other cheek. If Christians are judged on their actions and inactions, and if inactions are not a sin, and if suicide is a sin based on an action, then turning the other cheek, in the event of a breaking and entering, which results in your death, is not suicide and not a sin. If Christians are not following the path of jesus, and jesus suffered, and suffering is part of freewill and human existence, and jesus allowed himself to be unjustifiable killed/crucified, then this is the true path of Christians. Jesus said, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” There are two possible interpretations, a literal sword and a metaphorical sword. In the earliest version of the manuscripts in the Bible, there is no conclusive differentiate of which context is used. There are some evidence of the apostles were all killed for spreading Christianity, without physically defending themselves. Not to be insulting,but "sell a cloak and buy a sword", could be economic advice. Even when bodily harm is possible, jesus say, "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Jesus does not say defend yourself, with a sword, when it's possible you might be harmed. but he does say what action should be taken when faced with violence or bodily harm, aka a slap, and eye, a tooth... turn the other cheek.
Board index ‹ War
28 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by jimwalton » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:40 pm
The justification for self-defense or even just war lies in the Christian positions about truth, justice, morality, and peace. Provided that there is a legitimate basis for the use of violence along with a vigilant precaution against its overreaction in practice, a qualified use of force is not only necessary, but justifiable. Force is sometimes the only viable solution to maintain truth, justice, peace, and morality.
Violence, for the sake of our argument, is authority without a legitimate basis, the illicit contravention of another authority, of the overreaction of injustice against justice. Force, by contrast, is the legitimate enforcement of justice and morality.
The real question at hand is: Is there ever legitimate justification to meet violence with force to bring about a just, moral, and peaceful conclusion? The Bible would argue yes. In a fallen world, the ideal of legal justice without the exercise of force is naive. God instituted kings and courts to be agents of justice and morality in the world. The only way to truly in any realistic sense be such agents is to defend, protect, and even coerce.
Some just and moral expression of force is necessary to restrain violence. But that expression must have a legitimate basis as well as a legitimate excise. No force that does not issue from justice and that is not restrained by justice can achieve justice. Outside this there is only violence. Some force is necessary, but it is always imperative to exercise it within the norms and constraints of biblical principles and with a honest recognition of the truths about human nature and behavior. Without the legitimate use of force, it is impossible for the government or individuals to protect the oppressed, liberate the exploited, redeem the victims of injustice, and establish justice against crime, exploitation, and wrongdoing.
Christianity is not incompatible with just war, legitimate self-defense, or even the protection of others against wrongdoing. Christianity employs force to bring defense, protection, and war their proper expression: to bring about a just and moral society. The cause must be just, the authority must be moral, the means must be proportional, and the effect must be beneficial and good.
Violence, for the sake of our argument, is authority without a legitimate basis, the illicit contravention of another authority, of the overreaction of injustice against justice. Force, by contrast, is the legitimate enforcement of justice and morality.
The real question at hand is: Is there ever legitimate justification to meet violence with force to bring about a just, moral, and peaceful conclusion? The Bible would argue yes. In a fallen world, the ideal of legal justice without the exercise of force is naive. God instituted kings and courts to be agents of justice and morality in the world. The only way to truly in any realistic sense be such agents is to defend, protect, and even coerce.
Some just and moral expression of force is necessary to restrain violence. But that expression must have a legitimate basis as well as a legitimate excise. No force that does not issue from justice and that is not restrained by justice can achieve justice. Outside this there is only violence. Some force is necessary, but it is always imperative to exercise it within the norms and constraints of biblical principles and with a honest recognition of the truths about human nature and behavior. Without the legitimate use of force, it is impossible for the government or individuals to protect the oppressed, liberate the exploited, redeem the victims of injustice, and establish justice against crime, exploitation, and wrongdoing.
Christianity is not incompatible with just war, legitimate self-defense, or even the protection of others against wrongdoing. Christianity employs force to bring defense, protection, and war their proper expression: to bring about a just and moral society. The cause must be just, the authority must be moral, the means must be proportional, and the effect must be beneficial and good.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by Angel » Tue Mar 13, 2018 3:47 pm
> The real question at hand is: Is there ever legitimate justification to meet violence with force to bring about a just, moral, and peaceful conclusion? The Bible would argue yes.
Rebuttal without any demonstration from the Bible. Also, please restrain the way you use "force"in this argument. I'm specifically referring to force against violence resulting in death (self-defense resulting in the death of the criminal.)
Also, the Bible states, thou shall not phoneuó, which has two translations, kill and murder. Killing is not necessarily murder, but murder is necessarily killing. And if a law is presented with both a generic and specific meaning, you follow the generic meaning to avoid being condemned. For example, a law state, do not hit. Hitting could mean pound with an object or more specifically with a stick. If the law does not mention you can't hit using a stick, that does not give you permission to hit with a stick. You will follow the generic meaning.
Rebuttal without any demonstration from the Bible. Also, please restrain the way you use "force"in this argument. I'm specifically referring to force against violence resulting in death (self-defense resulting in the death of the criminal.)
Also, the Bible states, thou shall not phoneuó, which has two translations, kill and murder. Killing is not necessarily murder, but murder is necessarily killing. And if a law is presented with both a generic and specific meaning, you follow the generic meaning to avoid being condemned. For example, a law state, do not hit. Hitting could mean pound with an object or more specifically with a stick. If the law does not mention you can't hit using a stick, that does not give you permission to hit with a stick. You will follow the generic meaning.
- Angel
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by jimwalton » Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:26 pm
> Rebuttal without any demonstration from the Bible
As far as generically speaking...
- Genesis 9.6 speaks of governmental force (to the point of execution) to maintain justice in the world
- Romans 13.2-5 shows the government's right to use force to maintain justice in the world. (And, by the way, this follows the text in Romans 12.17-21 talking about not being vengeful people, trying to live at peace, and overcoming evil with good. There is an appropriate and just use of force to accomplish these tasks.)
But let's talk about self-defense and the "turn the other cheek" text, Mt. 5.38-42. First of all, Jesus is not talking about never defending ourselves. Nor is he implying that we should disband the police force. The context of the verses is a discourse from Jesus about the inadequacy of their position about the true righteousness that God desires. Jesus gives 5 examples (murder, adultery, vows, personal relationships [this one], and love for enemies). In each example, he refers to the shallow understanding and then fills it in with deeper truth. In this section, for instance, the religion leaders were cherry picking a phrase from the OT and making it mean what they wanted, justifying retaliation in personal relationships. Jesus rejects the interpretation. God never intended these words to be used for private vendettas (the way scoffers use them today: "If we all lived eye for eye and tooth for tooth, we would all be blind and toothless." A total misunderstanding). The "eye for eye" was to guarantee that the punishment from courts fit the crime and not exceed it. It had nothing to do with personal relationships and personal offenses.
Jesus is giving an alternative: if someone offends you, brush it off. In a situation of insult and contempt, be gracious. These are not words referring to a situation where the perpetrator is inflicting damage. It doesn't include a robber who cruises the neighborhood, or the bully who abuses other people. The robber, the murderer, the bully and the rapist, et al., should received resistance and an "eye for an eye" for their crimes, violences, and immoralities.
Is self-defense OK? Sure. In the book of Nehemiah, Nehemiah and the citizens worked with a brick in one hand and a sword in the other, depending on God but also actively self-defending and protecting each other. Abraham, also, in Gn. 14, took up arms and rescued Lot from the thugs who had attacked and captured them. He chooses military action to defend and possess that which was rightfully his, and is blessed by Melchizedek and God following his action.
In addition, Jesus wasn't setting rules in Matthew 5. You can't legislate anger (5.22), lust (5.28), oaths (34), grace (5.39), or love (5.44). Jesus is outlining a manifesto of his kingdom. Instead of wielding the power of violence, the community of Jesus’s disciples is to be meek, merciful, pure, devoted to peacemaking, and willing to suffer persecution for doing what is right. Jesus is giving principles of fairness and justice, and how to live in peace with each other. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't defend ourselves. There is no teaching here that the law and its penalties should be shut down.
You wonder where self-defense is in the New Testament. It isn't there, because the NT is a document about the kingdom of God, about the way of salvation, and about Jesus's cross and resurrection. It's not an ethics textbook. He has in mind no thought that men are to allow the innocent to be abused and the helpless to be killed, when it is possible to protect and to deliver them, as the OT often teaches that we should advocate for the poor and downtrodden. The OT speaks strongly and often about "purging evil from among us," about making the punishment fit the crime, and about stopping evil with the power of government and citizen action (Dt. 19.15-21; Ex. 21.12-25, and plenty of others).
You also want to talk about phoneuó. I'm questioning your analysis and conclusion. Can you give me a biblical example of where phoneuó means kill but not murder? Your point rests on that twist, and I want you to substantiate it.
As far as generically speaking...
- Genesis 9.6 speaks of governmental force (to the point of execution) to maintain justice in the world
- Romans 13.2-5 shows the government's right to use force to maintain justice in the world. (And, by the way, this follows the text in Romans 12.17-21 talking about not being vengeful people, trying to live at peace, and overcoming evil with good. There is an appropriate and just use of force to accomplish these tasks.)
But let's talk about self-defense and the "turn the other cheek" text, Mt. 5.38-42. First of all, Jesus is not talking about never defending ourselves. Nor is he implying that we should disband the police force. The context of the verses is a discourse from Jesus about the inadequacy of their position about the true righteousness that God desires. Jesus gives 5 examples (murder, adultery, vows, personal relationships [this one], and love for enemies). In each example, he refers to the shallow understanding and then fills it in with deeper truth. In this section, for instance, the religion leaders were cherry picking a phrase from the OT and making it mean what they wanted, justifying retaliation in personal relationships. Jesus rejects the interpretation. God never intended these words to be used for private vendettas (the way scoffers use them today: "If we all lived eye for eye and tooth for tooth, we would all be blind and toothless." A total misunderstanding). The "eye for eye" was to guarantee that the punishment from courts fit the crime and not exceed it. It had nothing to do with personal relationships and personal offenses.
Jesus is giving an alternative: if someone offends you, brush it off. In a situation of insult and contempt, be gracious. These are not words referring to a situation where the perpetrator is inflicting damage. It doesn't include a robber who cruises the neighborhood, or the bully who abuses other people. The robber, the murderer, the bully and the rapist, et al., should received resistance and an "eye for an eye" for their crimes, violences, and immoralities.
Is self-defense OK? Sure. In the book of Nehemiah, Nehemiah and the citizens worked with a brick in one hand and a sword in the other, depending on God but also actively self-defending and protecting each other. Abraham, also, in Gn. 14, took up arms and rescued Lot from the thugs who had attacked and captured them. He chooses military action to defend and possess that which was rightfully his, and is blessed by Melchizedek and God following his action.
In addition, Jesus wasn't setting rules in Matthew 5. You can't legislate anger (5.22), lust (5.28), oaths (34), grace (5.39), or love (5.44). Jesus is outlining a manifesto of his kingdom. Instead of wielding the power of violence, the community of Jesus’s disciples is to be meek, merciful, pure, devoted to peacemaking, and willing to suffer persecution for doing what is right. Jesus is giving principles of fairness and justice, and how to live in peace with each other. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't defend ourselves. There is no teaching here that the law and its penalties should be shut down.
You wonder where self-defense is in the New Testament. It isn't there, because the NT is a document about the kingdom of God, about the way of salvation, and about Jesus's cross and resurrection. It's not an ethics textbook. He has in mind no thought that men are to allow the innocent to be abused and the helpless to be killed, when it is possible to protect and to deliver them, as the OT often teaches that we should advocate for the poor and downtrodden. The OT speaks strongly and often about "purging evil from among us," about making the punishment fit the crime, and about stopping evil with the power of government and citizen action (Dt. 19.15-21; Ex. 21.12-25, and plenty of others).
You also want to talk about phoneuó. I'm questioning your analysis and conclusion. Can you give me a biblical example of where phoneuó means kill but not murder? Your point rests on that twist, and I want you to substantiate it.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by Angel » Wed Mar 14, 2018 6:08 pm
Sorry for the delay. It was a lot to respond to.
> Genesis 9.6 speaks of governmental force (to the point of execution) to maintain justice in the world
Irrelevant to the audience of my debate, who believe the New Testament is a new covenant for which jesus fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament, including laws of governance in the Old Testament.
> Romans 13.2-5 shows the government's right to use force to maintain justice in the world. (And, by the way, this follows the text in Romans 12.17-21 talking about not being vengeful people, trying to live at peace, and overcoming evil with good. There is an appropriate and just use of force to accomplish these tasks.)
A "right to use force to maintain justice in the world" and an "appropriate and just use of force to accomplish these tasks" does not necessarily mean killing in self defense is permissible. This argument is irrelevant to killing is permissible under a New Testament/new covenant theology.
> But let's talk about self-defense and the "turn the other cheek" text, Mt. 5.38-42. First of all, Jesus is not talking about never defending ourselves.
Please avoid double negatives. It makes debating unfortunately difficult.
> Is jesus talking about defending ourselves sometimes?
> Nor is he implying that we should disband the police force.
Irrelevant to this debate.
> The context of the verses is a discourse from Jesus about the inadequacy of their position about the true righteousness that God desires. Jesus gives 5 examples (murder, adultery, vows, personal relationships [this one], and love for enemies).
You haven't proven how the context prove that the quote, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Is related to "killing in self defense is permissible".
> In each example, he refers to the shallow understanding and then fills it in with deeper truth. In this section, for instance, the religion leaders were cherry picking a phrase from the OT and making it mean what they wanted, justifying retaliation in personal relationships. Jesus rejects the interpretation.
Why he said what he said is irrelevant.
> God never intended these words to be used for private vendettas (the way scoffers use them today: "If we all lived eye for eye and tooth for tooth, we would all be blind and toothless." A total misunderstanding).
irrelevant claim without immediate evidential support.
> The "eye for eye" was to guarantee that the punishment from courts fit the crime and not exceed it. It had nothing to do with personal relationships and personal offenses.
You state what jesus/god reject when he stated, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." But what did he accept with turn the other cheek? Don't address what he rejected, and what it had nothing to do with, Address what he accepted, in relation to the specific audience I'm debating, who view the New Testament as a new covenant and view old laws of an eye for an eye where abolished and a new covenant of turn the other cheek as a new law of governance. It's possible that you don't agree with the audience I'm attempting to debate, and not necessarily my argument.
> Jesus is giving an alternative: if someone offends you, brush it off. In a situation of insult and contempt, be gracious. These are not words referring to a situation where the perpetrator is inflicting damage
It seems you're attempting to confine Jesus's quotes to specific actions which would make it moral to perform other actions.
The phrases an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth were followed by "turn the other cheek." If there are new governance laws presented by jesus, then it should be interpreted as such. Laws are interpreted generically and not for specific situations. An analogy would be, a law says "do not hit". If you interpret it specifically and kick someone, and state "kicking is allowed". Because the law didn't mention what kind of hitting", then you're in violation of the law.
If an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth references all actions of equal responses in bodily harm, and the New action is turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, then any reciprocal action of causing equal harm, is illegal.
> It doesn't include a robber who cruises the neighborhood, or the bully who abuses other people. The robber, the murderer, the bully and the rapist, et al., should received resistance and an "eye for an eye" for their crimes, violences, and immoralities.
you've referenced an eye for an eye again, which was the Old Testament, and my argument for to an audience who interprets the Bible as a new covenant and new laws of governance.
> Is self-defense OK? Sure. In the book of Nehemiah, Nehemiah and the citizens worked with a brick in one hand and a sword in the other, depending on God but also actively self-defending and protecting each other. Abraham, also, in Gn. 14, took up arms and rescued Lot from the thugs who had attacked and captured them. He chooses military action to defend and possess that which was rightfully his, and is blessed by Melchizedek and God following his action.
Old Testament again. Irrelevant to those who those who ascribe to a new covenant theology.
> You can't legislate anger (5.22), lust (5.28), oaths (34), grace (5.39), or love (5.44).
Unless "can't" was a typo, This claim is irrelevant without evidence. Prove that anger, lust, oaths, grace, and love can not be legislated by jesus?
> In addition, Jesus wasn't setting rules in Matthew 5...Jesus is outlining a manifesto of his kingdom.
Claim without evidence.
> Instead of wielding the power of violence, the community of Jesus’s disciples is to be meek, merciful, pure, devoted to peacemaking, and willing to suffer persecution for doing what is right.
This Seems to support my argument of a pacifist mature of jesus teachings.
> Jesus is giving principles of fairness and justice, and how to live in peace with each other. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't defend ourselves.
You've made proclamation without immediate evidential support .
> There is no teaching here that the law and its penalties should be shut down.
I've given you one, turn the other cheek. The Old Testament is irrelevant to the audience of this debate. A claim of Jesus's statement are manifestos instead of runes where not support. If the audience I'm addressing claims that jesus provided a new covenant and new laws of governance, then turn the Rotherham cheek is immediately relevant to an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth. Interpreting the new laws of governance to a specific action would be illegal, when laws are meant to be interpreted generally. Other statement of jesus that are provisions how to interpret "turn the other cheek", would immediately follow the statement of turn the other cheek, and not in other versus or books.
> You wonder where self-defense is in the New Testament. It isn't there, because the NT is a document about the kingdom of God, about the way of salvation, and about Jesus's cross and resurrection.
Inaction in the face of bodily harm (eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth), is equal to pacifism and equals a lack of self defense.
> It's not an ethics textbook.
Irrelevant statement.
> He has in mind no thought that men are to allow the innocent to be abused and the helpless to be killed, when it is possible to protect and to deliver them,
"Protect and to deliver them" does not equal, killing is justified in self defense is allowed under the New Testament/new covenant theology.
> as the OT often teaches that we should advocate for the poor and downtrodden.
Old Testament is irrelevant to an audience which oils use New Testament/new covenant theology.
> The OT speaks strongly and often about "purging evil from among us," about making the punishment fit the crime, and about stopping evil with the power of government and citizen action (Dt. 19.15-21; Ex. 21.12-25, and plenty of others).
Old Testament is irrelevant to an audience which oils use New Testament/new covenant theology
> You also want to talk about phoneuó. I'm questioning your analysis and conclusion. Can you give me a biblical example of where phoneuó means kill but not murder? Your point rests on that twist, and I want you to substantiate it.
If I can't prove the Bible meant kill, that does not necessarily mean the Bible meant kill. Again, the generic interpretation of a law takes precedence over what you personally feel is a more moral interpretation. I can't prove the Bible meant kill only, or murder only. Therefore the generic interpretation of the law is the correct/legal interpretation.
> Genesis 9.6 speaks of governmental force (to the point of execution) to maintain justice in the world
Irrelevant to the audience of my debate, who believe the New Testament is a new covenant for which jesus fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament, including laws of governance in the Old Testament.
> Romans 13.2-5 shows the government's right to use force to maintain justice in the world. (And, by the way, this follows the text in Romans 12.17-21 talking about not being vengeful people, trying to live at peace, and overcoming evil with good. There is an appropriate and just use of force to accomplish these tasks.)
A "right to use force to maintain justice in the world" and an "appropriate and just use of force to accomplish these tasks" does not necessarily mean killing in self defense is permissible. This argument is irrelevant to killing is permissible under a New Testament/new covenant theology.
> But let's talk about self-defense and the "turn the other cheek" text, Mt. 5.38-42. First of all, Jesus is not talking about never defending ourselves.
Please avoid double negatives. It makes debating unfortunately difficult.
> Is jesus talking about defending ourselves sometimes?
> Nor is he implying that we should disband the police force.
Irrelevant to this debate.
> The context of the verses is a discourse from Jesus about the inadequacy of their position about the true righteousness that God desires. Jesus gives 5 examples (murder, adultery, vows, personal relationships [this one], and love for enemies).
You haven't proven how the context prove that the quote, "You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also." Is related to "killing in self defense is permissible".
> In each example, he refers to the shallow understanding and then fills it in with deeper truth. In this section, for instance, the religion leaders were cherry picking a phrase from the OT and making it mean what they wanted, justifying retaliation in personal relationships. Jesus rejects the interpretation.
Why he said what he said is irrelevant.
> God never intended these words to be used for private vendettas (the way scoffers use them today: "If we all lived eye for eye and tooth for tooth, we would all be blind and toothless." A total misunderstanding).
irrelevant claim without immediate evidential support.
> The "eye for eye" was to guarantee that the punishment from courts fit the crime and not exceed it. It had nothing to do with personal relationships and personal offenses.
You state what jesus/god reject when he stated, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." But what did he accept with turn the other cheek? Don't address what he rejected, and what it had nothing to do with, Address what he accepted, in relation to the specific audience I'm debating, who view the New Testament as a new covenant and view old laws of an eye for an eye where abolished and a new covenant of turn the other cheek as a new law of governance. It's possible that you don't agree with the audience I'm attempting to debate, and not necessarily my argument.
> Jesus is giving an alternative: if someone offends you, brush it off. In a situation of insult and contempt, be gracious. These are not words referring to a situation where the perpetrator is inflicting damage
It seems you're attempting to confine Jesus's quotes to specific actions which would make it moral to perform other actions.
The phrases an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth were followed by "turn the other cheek." If there are new governance laws presented by jesus, then it should be interpreted as such. Laws are interpreted generically and not for specific situations. An analogy would be, a law says "do not hit". If you interpret it specifically and kick someone, and state "kicking is allowed". Because the law didn't mention what kind of hitting", then you're in violation of the law.
If an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth references all actions of equal responses in bodily harm, and the New action is turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, then any reciprocal action of causing equal harm, is illegal.
> It doesn't include a robber who cruises the neighborhood, or the bully who abuses other people. The robber, the murderer, the bully and the rapist, et al., should received resistance and an "eye for an eye" for their crimes, violences, and immoralities.
you've referenced an eye for an eye again, which was the Old Testament, and my argument for to an audience who interprets the Bible as a new covenant and new laws of governance.
> Is self-defense OK? Sure. In the book of Nehemiah, Nehemiah and the citizens worked with a brick in one hand and a sword in the other, depending on God but also actively self-defending and protecting each other. Abraham, also, in Gn. 14, took up arms and rescued Lot from the thugs who had attacked and captured them. He chooses military action to defend and possess that which was rightfully his, and is blessed by Melchizedek and God following his action.
Old Testament again. Irrelevant to those who those who ascribe to a new covenant theology.
> You can't legislate anger (5.22), lust (5.28), oaths (34), grace (5.39), or love (5.44).
Unless "can't" was a typo, This claim is irrelevant without evidence. Prove that anger, lust, oaths, grace, and love can not be legislated by jesus?
> In addition, Jesus wasn't setting rules in Matthew 5...Jesus is outlining a manifesto of his kingdom.
Claim without evidence.
> Instead of wielding the power of violence, the community of Jesus’s disciples is to be meek, merciful, pure, devoted to peacemaking, and willing to suffer persecution for doing what is right.
This Seems to support my argument of a pacifist mature of jesus teachings.
> Jesus is giving principles of fairness and justice, and how to live in peace with each other. But that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't defend ourselves.
You've made proclamation without immediate evidential support .
> There is no teaching here that the law and its penalties should be shut down.
I've given you one, turn the other cheek. The Old Testament is irrelevant to the audience of this debate. A claim of Jesus's statement are manifestos instead of runes where not support. If the audience I'm addressing claims that jesus provided a new covenant and new laws of governance, then turn the Rotherham cheek is immediately relevant to an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth. Interpreting the new laws of governance to a specific action would be illegal, when laws are meant to be interpreted generally. Other statement of jesus that are provisions how to interpret "turn the other cheek", would immediately follow the statement of turn the other cheek, and not in other versus or books.
> You wonder where self-defense is in the New Testament. It isn't there, because the NT is a document about the kingdom of God, about the way of salvation, and about Jesus's cross and resurrection.
Inaction in the face of bodily harm (eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth), is equal to pacifism and equals a lack of self defense.
> It's not an ethics textbook.
Irrelevant statement.
> He has in mind no thought that men are to allow the innocent to be abused and the helpless to be killed, when it is possible to protect and to deliver them,
"Protect and to deliver them" does not equal, killing is justified in self defense is allowed under the New Testament/new covenant theology.
> as the OT often teaches that we should advocate for the poor and downtrodden.
Old Testament is irrelevant to an audience which oils use New Testament/new covenant theology.
> The OT speaks strongly and often about "purging evil from among us," about making the punishment fit the crime, and about stopping evil with the power of government and citizen action (Dt. 19.15-21; Ex. 21.12-25, and plenty of others).
Old Testament is irrelevant to an audience which oils use New Testament/new covenant theology
> You also want to talk about phoneuó. I'm questioning your analysis and conclusion. Can you give me a biblical example of where phoneuó means kill but not murder? Your point rests on that twist, and I want you to substantiate it.
If I can't prove the Bible meant kill, that does not necessarily mean the Bible meant kill. Again, the generic interpretation of a law takes precedence over what you personally feel is a more moral interpretation. I can't prove the Bible meant kill only, or murder only. Therefore the generic interpretation of the law is the correct/legal interpretation.
- Angel
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by jimwalton » Wed Mar 14, 2018 7:56 pm
A large part of your misunderstanding seems to stem from the mistaken notion that the Old Testament is no good...
- "Irrelevant to the audience of my debate, who believe the New Testament is a new covenant for which jesus fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament, including laws of governance in the Old Testament."
- "Old Testament again. Irrelevant to those who those who ascribe to a new covenant theology."
- "The Old Testament is irrelevant to the audience of this debate."
- et al.
... no longer valid, and that everything in it can now be ignored, which is not the case (Romans 3.31).
The Old Testament is God-breathed just like the NT (2 Tim. 3.16), and the prophets of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1.21). The OT reveals God just as the NT does (Hebrews 1.1), and the OT is considered Holy Scripture just as the NT is. Certainly Christians believe that the Law was fulfilled by Christ (Mt. 5.17) and we aren't under its supervision (Gal. 3.25), but the OT has tremendous value for Christians (2 Tim. 3.16), and we regard it as Scripture (Acts 24.14; Rom. 3.31).
The OT forms the basis of Jesus's credentials, but Jesus supplied his own credentials in what he said and did. As Dr. Craig Evans says, "The Old Testament provides the context and framework for understanding the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament wouldn't makes sense to us without the Old Testament." We cannot disregard the Old Testament. The whole book, OT & NT, is God's revelation for us.
The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not just one part of it. He “fulfilled” it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. The law is not invalidated (Rom. 3.31), but fulfilled.
The law of Moses was contingent on the tabernacle, and it was designed to prevent a repeat of the Fall, which was when access to God's presence was lost. It loses its primary significance if there is no abiding presence of God, which is the main reason the NT views the law as having lost its role after Pentecost. But that doesn't mean the law is abrogate and can be ignored. It still has its place.
Nor is "why [Jesus] said what he said is irrelevant." The "why" is always relevant. Jesus was always a stickler on understanding the principles and motives behind the letter of the law.
> Please avoid double negatives. It makes debating unfortunately difficult. Is jesus talking about defending ourselves sometimes?
Fine. Jesus is talking about that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees, and in this particular text, that the Pharisees were misinterpreting the law. The intent of the law was that the punishment fit the crime, and the Pharisees had turned it into a justification for personal vengeance. Instead, Jesus teaches, instances of personal insult and contempt should be absorbed. He is not saying anything about, nor making an reference to or statement about...
- self-defense
- crime
- justice
- resisting evil
In addition we can observe...
- that Jesus is still teaching the OT law, and nothing that he is teaching is new material. He is radicalizing the Law, not invalidating it.
- There is no supposition of the abrogation of the law or its penalties.
- There is no supposition that evil should go unpunished
- Jesus does not condemn the law of justice
> who view the New Testament as a new covenant and view old laws of an eye for an eye where abolished and a new covenant of turn the other cheek as a new law of governance
The old laws were not abolished, and Jesus is not establishing a new law of governance. As I said, "You can't legislate anger (5.22), lust (5.28), oaths (34), grace (5.39), or love (5.44)." You say, "This claim is irrelevant without evidence. Prove that anger, lust, oaths, grace, and love can not be legislated by Jesus?" Absence proves it. There is no legislation by Jesus about such things. Can someone be arrested for anger? Can they be tried in a court of law for it? Where in the NT is any legislation about it? Nowhere. At what point does lust become prosecutable? There is no such teaching. If you want to make that case, you have to substantiate your case.
> If an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth references all actions of equal responses in bodily harm, and the New action is turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, then any reciprocal action of causing equal harm, is illegal.
The lex talionis is not about equal responses of bodily harm, but about a court verdict making the punishment fit the crime. And the new action is not to turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, but about proper response to insult. A strike on the right cheek is a strike of insult and contempt, not of bodily harm. (A right-handed man strikes on the left cheek of his opponent when trying to injure.)
> This Seems to support my argument of a pacifist mature of jesus teachings.
Jesus does preach peace, but that doesn't mean he teaches against self-defense.
> If the audience I'm addressing claims that jesus provided a new covenant and new laws of governance,
See above. Jesus is not establishing new laws of governance.
> Inaction in the face of bodily harm (eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth), is equal to pacifism and equals a lack of self defense.
See above. The text is not about bodily harm.
> If I can't prove the Bible meant kill, that does not necessarily mean the Bible meant kill. Again, the generic interpretation of a law takes precedence over what you personally feel is a more moral interpretation.
Oh, I'm not talking about generic interpretations or personal feelings, but about the meaning of words. At least part of your point is founded on the claim that phoneuo means kill and not just murder. I'm asking you to substantiate it. When you said, "I can't prove the Bible meant kill only, or murder only," you undermined your point. And with your misunderstanding of the OT, you undermine your point.
- "Irrelevant to the audience of my debate, who believe the New Testament is a new covenant for which jesus fulfilled all the laws of the Old Testament, including laws of governance in the Old Testament."
- "Old Testament again. Irrelevant to those who those who ascribe to a new covenant theology."
- "The Old Testament is irrelevant to the audience of this debate."
- et al.
... no longer valid, and that everything in it can now be ignored, which is not the case (Romans 3.31).
The Old Testament is God-breathed just like the NT (2 Tim. 3.16), and the prophets of old spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1.21). The OT reveals God just as the NT does (Hebrews 1.1), and the OT is considered Holy Scripture just as the NT is. Certainly Christians believe that the Law was fulfilled by Christ (Mt. 5.17) and we aren't under its supervision (Gal. 3.25), but the OT has tremendous value for Christians (2 Tim. 3.16), and we regard it as Scripture (Acts 24.14; Rom. 3.31).
The OT forms the basis of Jesus's credentials, but Jesus supplied his own credentials in what he said and did. As Dr. Craig Evans says, "The Old Testament provides the context and framework for understanding the New Testament. In other words, the New Testament wouldn't makes sense to us without the Old Testament." We cannot disregard the Old Testament. The whole book, OT & NT, is God's revelation for us.
The law that Christ fulfilled was the law in general—not just one part of it. He “fulfilled” it in that He did what the law failed to do: showed people how to live. The law was a temporary measure—God wanted to tell His people that they should have certain attitudes. He did that by commanding actions (the law) with the idea that they would see the attitudes behind them. They failed. Christ, on the other hand, preached the attitudes (Matthew 5) but more importantly lived an example of the proper attitudes (Philippians 2.5-8) as well as the proper actions (John 8.46), thus accomplishing what the law failed to accomplish. The law is not invalidated (Rom. 3.31), but fulfilled.
The law of Moses was contingent on the tabernacle, and it was designed to prevent a repeat of the Fall, which was when access to God's presence was lost. It loses its primary significance if there is no abiding presence of God, which is the main reason the NT views the law as having lost its role after Pentecost. But that doesn't mean the law is abrogate and can be ignored. It still has its place.
Nor is "why [Jesus] said what he said is irrelevant." The "why" is always relevant. Jesus was always a stickler on understanding the principles and motives behind the letter of the law.
> Please avoid double negatives. It makes debating unfortunately difficult. Is jesus talking about defending ourselves sometimes?
Fine. Jesus is talking about that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees, and in this particular text, that the Pharisees were misinterpreting the law. The intent of the law was that the punishment fit the crime, and the Pharisees had turned it into a justification for personal vengeance. Instead, Jesus teaches, instances of personal insult and contempt should be absorbed. He is not saying anything about, nor making an reference to or statement about...
- self-defense
- crime
- justice
- resisting evil
In addition we can observe...
- that Jesus is still teaching the OT law, and nothing that he is teaching is new material. He is radicalizing the Law, not invalidating it.
- There is no supposition of the abrogation of the law or its penalties.
- There is no supposition that evil should go unpunished
- Jesus does not condemn the law of justice
> who view the New Testament as a new covenant and view old laws of an eye for an eye where abolished and a new covenant of turn the other cheek as a new law of governance
The old laws were not abolished, and Jesus is not establishing a new law of governance. As I said, "You can't legislate anger (5.22), lust (5.28), oaths (34), grace (5.39), or love (5.44)." You say, "This claim is irrelevant without evidence. Prove that anger, lust, oaths, grace, and love can not be legislated by Jesus?" Absence proves it. There is no legislation by Jesus about such things. Can someone be arrested for anger? Can they be tried in a court of law for it? Where in the NT is any legislation about it? Nowhere. At what point does lust become prosecutable? There is no such teaching. If you want to make that case, you have to substantiate your case.
> If an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth references all actions of equal responses in bodily harm, and the New action is turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, then any reciprocal action of causing equal harm, is illegal.
The lex talionis is not about equal responses of bodily harm, but about a court verdict making the punishment fit the crime. And the new action is not to turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, but about proper response to insult. A strike on the right cheek is a strike of insult and contempt, not of bodily harm. (A right-handed man strikes on the left cheek of his opponent when trying to injure.)
> This Seems to support my argument of a pacifist mature of jesus teachings.
Jesus does preach peace, but that doesn't mean he teaches against self-defense.
> If the audience I'm addressing claims that jesus provided a new covenant and new laws of governance,
See above. Jesus is not establishing new laws of governance.
> Inaction in the face of bodily harm (eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth), is equal to pacifism and equals a lack of self defense.
See above. The text is not about bodily harm.
> If I can't prove the Bible meant kill, that does not necessarily mean the Bible meant kill. Again, the generic interpretation of a law takes precedence over what you personally feel is a more moral interpretation.
Oh, I'm not talking about generic interpretations or personal feelings, but about the meaning of words. At least part of your point is founded on the claim that phoneuo means kill and not just murder. I'm asking you to substantiate it. When you said, "I can't prove the Bible meant kill only, or murder only," you undermined your point. And with your misunderstanding of the OT, you undermine your point.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by Angel » Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:51 pm
"If an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth references all actions of equal responses in bodily harm, and the New action is turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, then any reciprocal action of causing equal harm, is illegal.
> And the new action is not to turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, but about proper response to insult.
the statement , "when slapped, turn the other check" follows, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Do think turning the other cheek when slapped, has nothing to do with the previous statement about scenarios when someone's eye is gouged out, or their tooth is knocked out?
A strike on the right cheek is a strike of insult and contempt, not of bodily harm. (A right-handed man strikes on the left cheek of his opponent when trying to injure.)
A strike on the cheek, or injuring someone's eye, or knocking out someone's tooth is only insult and not bodily harm?
> Jesus teaches, instances of personal insult and contempt should be absorbed. He is not saying anything about, nor making an reference to or statement about...self-defense
If I stated, "when you're attacked, do nothing", That statement has no relationship to the level of self defense I expect you to take?
> At least part of your point is founded on the claim that phoneuo means kill and not just murder.
None of my argument states phoneuó means "kill and not just murder". I'm stating the word means both kill and murder. And if the context can not be conclusively deduced within the Bible, then, as a law, the generic meaning is the context that must be used. In other words, we don't know conclusively what your god meant when the word phoneuó as used, therefore if you are to remain without sin in relation to this specific law, to be sure, the generic form of the word should be used. If you can't conclusively show that the context is conclusively, "murder", then if you kill in self defense, you may actually be sinning.
> And the new action is not to turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, but about proper response to insult.
the statement , "when slapped, turn the other check" follows, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Do think turning the other cheek when slapped, has nothing to do with the previous statement about scenarios when someone's eye is gouged out, or their tooth is knocked out?
A strike on the right cheek is a strike of insult and contempt, not of bodily harm. (A right-handed man strikes on the left cheek of his opponent when trying to injure.)
A strike on the cheek, or injuring someone's eye, or knocking out someone's tooth is only insult and not bodily harm?
> Jesus teaches, instances of personal insult and contempt should be absorbed. He is not saying anything about, nor making an reference to or statement about...self-defense
If I stated, "when you're attacked, do nothing", That statement has no relationship to the level of self defense I expect you to take?
> At least part of your point is founded on the claim that phoneuo means kill and not just murder.
None of my argument states phoneuó means "kill and not just murder". I'm stating the word means both kill and murder. And if the context can not be conclusively deduced within the Bible, then, as a law, the generic meaning is the context that must be used. In other words, we don't know conclusively what your god meant when the word phoneuó as used, therefore if you are to remain without sin in relation to this specific law, to be sure, the generic form of the word should be used. If you can't conclusively show that the context is conclusively, "murder", then if you kill in self defense, you may actually be sinning.
- Angel
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 15, 2018 3:26 pm
> "If an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth references all actions of equal responses in bodily harm, and the New action is turn the other cheek when faced with any bodily harm, then any reciprocal action of causing equal harm, is illegal.
The context, as I've said, is personal righteousness. The overriding theme of the whole section is, "Your righteousness has to surpass that of the religious hypocrites." When Jesus speaks of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," he is referencing the lex talionis, which the religious hypocrites had been using as an excuse for personal revenge. Jesus's point is that as individuals we should absorb the insults of evil people rather than retaliate in like kind.
> A strike on the cheek, or injuring someone's eye, or knocking out someone's tooth is only insult and not bodily harm?
The original text was about bodily harm, but Jesus's use of it here is not. Jesus is using it because many were misusing the teaching as an excuse of personal revenge. Jesus's point in using it doesn't pertain to bodily harm but rather about personal relationships and being people of grace (as is shown by the other two examples in the section [vv. 41-42]).
> If I stated, "when you're attacked, do nothing", That statement has no relationship to the level of self defense I expect you to take?
That may be, but the text isn't about being attacked and it's not about self-defense. It's about insult and being a person of grace rather than contempt or revenge.
> None of my argument states phoneuó means "kill and not just murder".
In your original post: "The Greek work phoneuó is used in the Bible. Phoneuó has two meanings, murder and kill. In the earliest version of the manuscripts in the Bible, there is no conclusive differentiate of which context is used. It's possible the context is kill, and not murder."
> I'm stating the word means both kill and murder.
And I asked you to give me a biblical example of where phoneuó means kill but not murder, but you have yet to provide that.
> If you can't conclusively show that the context is conclusively, "murder", then if you kill in self defense, you may actually be sinning.
As far as I know, every context of phoneuó is specifically murder, unless you can show me otherwise. Therefore, self-defense isn't sin unless you can substantiate your claim.
The context, as I've said, is personal righteousness. The overriding theme of the whole section is, "Your righteousness has to surpass that of the religious hypocrites." When Jesus speaks of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," he is referencing the lex talionis, which the religious hypocrites had been using as an excuse for personal revenge. Jesus's point is that as individuals we should absorb the insults of evil people rather than retaliate in like kind.
> A strike on the cheek, or injuring someone's eye, or knocking out someone's tooth is only insult and not bodily harm?
The original text was about bodily harm, but Jesus's use of it here is not. Jesus is using it because many were misusing the teaching as an excuse of personal revenge. Jesus's point in using it doesn't pertain to bodily harm but rather about personal relationships and being people of grace (as is shown by the other two examples in the section [vv. 41-42]).
> If I stated, "when you're attacked, do nothing", That statement has no relationship to the level of self defense I expect you to take?
That may be, but the text isn't about being attacked and it's not about self-defense. It's about insult and being a person of grace rather than contempt or revenge.
> None of my argument states phoneuó means "kill and not just murder".
In your original post: "The Greek work phoneuó is used in the Bible. Phoneuó has two meanings, murder and kill. In the earliest version of the manuscripts in the Bible, there is no conclusive differentiate of which context is used. It's possible the context is kill, and not murder."
> I'm stating the word means both kill and murder.
And I asked you to give me a biblical example of where phoneuó means kill but not murder, but you have yet to provide that.
> If you can't conclusively show that the context is conclusively, "murder", then if you kill in self defense, you may actually be sinning.
As far as I know, every context of phoneuó is specifically murder, unless you can show me otherwise. Therefore, self-defense isn't sin unless you can substantiate your claim.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by Angel » Thu Mar 15, 2018 9:53 pm
> The context, as I've said, is personal righteousness. The overriding theme of the whole section is, "Your righteousness has to surpass that of the religious hypocrites."
Please prove conclusively that jesus only means personal righteousness and not a literal meaning of actions that should be taken when faced with bodily harm?
I am not claiming phoneuó men's only kill. I am claiming it has two meanings, kill and murder. Do you agree that if I can't prove that the word used in the Bible is kill, and you can conclusively prove that the word used in the Bible means murder, then both meanings have to apply?
> As far as I know, every context of phoneuó is specifically murder, unless you can show me otherwise. Therefore, self-defense isn't sin unless you can substantiate your claim.
Please provide conclusive evidence for this?
Please prove conclusively that jesus only means personal righteousness and not a literal meaning of actions that should be taken when faced with bodily harm?
I am not claiming phoneuó men's only kill. I am claiming it has two meanings, kill and murder. Do you agree that if I can't prove that the word used in the Bible is kill, and you can conclusively prove that the word used in the Bible means murder, then both meanings have to apply?
> As far as I know, every context of phoneuó is specifically murder, unless you can show me otherwise. Therefore, self-defense isn't sin unless you can substantiate your claim.
Please provide conclusive evidence for this?
- Angel
Re: Just war theory isn't biblical
by jimwalton » Thu Mar 15, 2018 10:05 pm
> Please prove conclusively that jesus only means personal righteousness
Matthew 5.20: "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Then Jesus launches into a series of 5 examples of what he means by that. "You've heard it said...but I say to you."
> I am not claiming phoneuó men's only kill. I am claiming it has two meanings, kill and murder.
I have asked you three times to substantiate this. I'll presume at this point that you cannot.
> Please provide conclusive evidence for this?
You can't prove your point, so you ask me to prove mine. Fine.
- Mt. 5.21: murder, referencing Ex. 20.13 where the Hebrew word תִרְצָח meaning "murder." So also Mt. 19.18; Rom. 13.9; James 2.11.
- Mt. 23.30: the murder of the prophets
- Mt. 23.35: murder
- James 4.2: murder: intentional homicide as a violent act
- James 5.6: murder.
There. The word means "murder." Now let's see your list of verses where it means kill but not murder.
> Do you agree that if I can't prove that the word used in the Bible is kill, and you can conclusively prove that the word used in the Bible means murder, then both meanings have to apply?
No, what that means is that the word means "murder," as opposed to other kinds of killing (warfare, accidental, self-defense, etc.).
Matthew 5.20: "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." Then Jesus launches into a series of 5 examples of what he means by that. "You've heard it said...but I say to you."
> I am not claiming phoneuó men's only kill. I am claiming it has two meanings, kill and murder.
I have asked you three times to substantiate this. I'll presume at this point that you cannot.
> Please provide conclusive evidence for this?
You can't prove your point, so you ask me to prove mine. Fine.
- Mt. 5.21: murder, referencing Ex. 20.13 where the Hebrew word תִרְצָח meaning "murder." So also Mt. 19.18; Rom. 13.9; James 2.11.
- Mt. 23.30: the murder of the prophets
- Mt. 23.35: murder
- James 4.2: murder: intentional homicide as a violent act
- James 5.6: murder.
There. The word means "murder." Now let's see your list of verses where it means kill but not murder.
> Do you agree that if I can't prove that the word used in the Bible is kill, and you can conclusively prove that the word used in the Bible means murder, then both meanings have to apply?
No, what that means is that the word means "murder," as opposed to other kinds of killing (warfare, accidental, self-defense, etc.).
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
28 posts
• Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest