R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
My pastor is Jesus and that is who I follow.
- Status
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Robert, ask Him why He didn’t condemn killing when He talked about killing on the Sabbath.
Notworthy
Notworthy
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Robert,
This is the story that I’m referring to:
On a Sabbath day, Jesus entered a synagogue and began to teach. A man with a withered right hand happened to be present, “and the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against Him” (Lk. 6:7). Jesus initiates an encounter by calling the man with the withered hand to come to the center of attention next to Him. With the man in full view, Jesus poses a question: “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath go do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (Lk. 6:9). Jesus is alluding to an exception to the Sabbath law as taught by the Pharisees. What kind of exception would allow for harm and killing? Warfare. During the time of the Maccabean revolt, only a century and a half before the time of Jesus, a community of Jews was attacked on the Sabbath day. Sinced it was the Sabbath, they decided not to resist, lest they break the Sabbath. Word quickly spread of the infamous Sabbath slaughter, and Mattathias and his followers discussed what they should do, since the Gentiles were sure now to attack on only one day of the week. “So they made this decision that day: "Let us fight against every man who comes to attack us on the Sabbath day; let us not all die as our brethren died in their hiding places” (1 Mac. 2:41). This was an exception made to the Sabbath law: Warfare and killing were allowed for the sake of defense. So Jesus’ question is more than a rhetorical one: The implied argument of Jesus was thus, “If it is lawful on the Sabbath for the sake of Israel and the Torah to kill, how much more ought it be permitted to heal this man, who is an Israelite, on the Sabbath!”
Again, Jesus never condemns the act of killing on the Sabbath. He prefers healing, which is only right, but He doesn’t condemn killing in the right circumstances.
NotWorthy
This is the story that I’m referring to:
On a Sabbath day, Jesus entered a synagogue and began to teach. A man with a withered right hand happened to be present, “and the scribes and the Pharisees watched him, to see whether he would heal on the Sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against Him” (Lk. 6:7). Jesus initiates an encounter by calling the man with the withered hand to come to the center of attention next to Him. With the man in full view, Jesus poses a question: “I ask you, is it lawful on the Sabbath go do good or to do harm, to save life or to destroy it?” (Lk. 6:9). Jesus is alluding to an exception to the Sabbath law as taught by the Pharisees. What kind of exception would allow for harm and killing? Warfare. During the time of the Maccabean revolt, only a century and a half before the time of Jesus, a community of Jews was attacked on the Sabbath day. Sinced it was the Sabbath, they decided not to resist, lest they break the Sabbath. Word quickly spread of the infamous Sabbath slaughter, and Mattathias and his followers discussed what they should do, since the Gentiles were sure now to attack on only one day of the week. “So they made this decision that day: "Let us fight against every man who comes to attack us on the Sabbath day; let us not all die as our brethren died in their hiding places” (1 Mac. 2:41). This was an exception made to the Sabbath law: Warfare and killing were allowed for the sake of defense. So Jesus’ question is more than a rhetorical one: The implied argument of Jesus was thus, “If it is lawful on the Sabbath for the sake of Israel and the Torah to kill, how much more ought it be permitted to heal this man, who is an Israelite, on the Sabbath!”
Again, Jesus never condemns the act of killing on the Sabbath. He prefers healing, which is only right, but He doesn’t condemn killing in the right circumstances.
NotWorthy
J
JKirkLVNV
Guest
Robert Heibel said:
The Bible rises out of the Catholic Church. It means what the Catholic Church says it means.
P
Pax
Guest
Robert Heibel:
You choose to ignore certain things in scripture because they do not support what you happen to think.
You apparently have no clue that at least some of what you believe is coming straight out of your imagination and not from the Lord. I find it interesting that when you are presented with scripture that refutes your contentions you simply ignore it and proceed on your merry way.
In my post # 11 on this thread I presented you with two passages of scripture that are contrary to your thinking. You have ignored them. Please try answering them directly. Once you have done that you can then proceed to address this passage of scripture as well:
In Luke Chapter 11, Jesus cast out a demon from one of the people. Some of the bystanders accused Him of having done this by the power of Beelzebub. In his response to the accusers Jesus talks about a house divided not being able to stand. As part of his response He also says the following in Luke 11:21: **" When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace; but when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil." **
Please note that Jesus, himself, uses an example of a strong man defending his house against an assailant who overpowers the man. If Jesus was against self defense he would not have used this example the way he did. If he was against self defense and still wanted to use the example, then Jesus would have made some kind of statement condemning self defense. Jesus did not do this. Jesus had no problem with self defense in its proper context.
If you were given a conviction against harming people that is fine. But you have clearly misunderstood the message. Self defense is perfectly legitimate. You are also completely wrong about the concept of a “just war.” The allies fought a “just war” against the Nazis. There was no alternative to stopping Hitler and his murderous Nazis regime. Your personal theory would apparently allow for the extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and others without anyone lifting a finger to stop it. On this one it is more likely that you are listening to Ghandi and not Jesus.
Robert,
You choose to ignore certain things in scripture because they do not support what you happen to think.
You apparently have no clue that at least some of what you believe is coming straight out of your imagination and not from the Lord. I find it interesting that when you are presented with scripture that refutes your contentions you simply ignore it and proceed on your merry way.
In my post # 11 on this thread I presented you with two passages of scripture that are contrary to your thinking. You have ignored them. Please try answering them directly. Once you have done that you can then proceed to address this passage of scripture as well:
In Luke Chapter 11, Jesus cast out a demon from one of the people. Some of the bystanders accused Him of having done this by the power of Beelzebub. In his response to the accusers Jesus talks about a house divided not being able to stand. As part of his response He also says the following in Luke 11:21: **" When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace; but when one stronger than he assails him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted, and divides his spoil." **
Please note that Jesus, himself, uses an example of a strong man defending his house against an assailant who overpowers the man. If Jesus was against self defense he would not have used this example the way he did. If he was against self defense and still wanted to use the example, then Jesus would have made some kind of statement condemning self defense. Jesus did not do this. Jesus had no problem with self defense in its proper context.
If you were given a conviction against harming people that is fine. But you have clearly misunderstood the message. Self defense is perfectly legitimate. You are also completely wrong about the concept of a “just war.” The allies fought a “just war” against the Nazis. There was no alternative to stopping Hitler and his murderous Nazis regime. Your personal theory would apparently allow for the extermination of millions of Jews, Gypsies, Poles, and others without anyone lifting a finger to stop it. On this one it is more likely that you are listening to Ghandi and not Jesus.
R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
Pax, Read (Matthew 13:13)”The reason I talk to them in parables is that they look without seeing and listen without hearing or understanding,” (Luke 11:14-22) is a parable.
J
Jlcastagna
Guest
RH, you say:"My pastor is Jesus and that is who I follow " it sounds like your saying its just Jesus and me and no one has ever translated the Bible correctly until Jesus spoke to you.
John 17:20-21 says "I pray not only for them but also for those who will belive in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
What it doesn’t say is, I pray not only for them but also for Robert Heibel who will believe in me ect.
Robert, the Bible is a Catholic book given to the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, The Bride of Christ, by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not come down and hand the Bible to King James or Martin Luther.
If it is just Jesus and You then the Holy Spirit has been guiding no one to the truth sence the Apostle John died around 100, 1900 yrs. with absolutely no guidance. Hmm, sounds logical to me.
I’m going to have to cut this short because I have to be back at work in 7 hours. sorry, but also read Matthew 18:15-20. Robert more than 2 or 3 of us have witnessed to you here. I guess we will have to take it to the Church. I don’t think Jesus was talking about the church of (Jesus and Robert Heibel)
May God Bless and Protect Us,
Jlcastagna
Your Arms are to short to box with God!
John 17:20-21 says "I pray not only for them but also for those who will belive in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you Father, are in me and I in you, that they may also be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.
What it doesn’t say is, I pray not only for them but also for Robert Heibel who will believe in me ect.
Robert, the Bible is a Catholic book given to the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, The Bride of Christ, by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit did not come down and hand the Bible to King James or Martin Luther.
If it is just Jesus and You then the Holy Spirit has been guiding no one to the truth sence the Apostle John died around 100, 1900 yrs. with absolutely no guidance. Hmm, sounds logical to me.
I’m going to have to cut this short because I have to be back at work in 7 hours. sorry, but also read Matthew 18:15-20. Robert more than 2 or 3 of us have witnessed to you here. I guess we will have to take it to the Church. I don’t think Jesus was talking about the church of (Jesus and Robert Heibel)
May God Bless and Protect Us,
Jlcastagna
Your Arms are to short to box with God!
P
Pax
Guest
Robert Heibel:
Is this your direct analysis and refutation of the scriptures presented to you?
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Hello Trelow -Here is a more traditional definition. I’m taking in regards to absolute pacifism.
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=pacifism
S:pacifism, pacificism, passivism (the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable)
S:
I didn’t see this till now. I don’t believe in absolute pacifism. If someone is trying to kill me or my family or simply an innocent person I would have to step in and defend that innocent life. So, I suppose you would call this limited pacifism?
Although I believe in non-violence as a rule (hence my nickname here which means non-harming or non-violence) there are exceptions like in self-defense. When war comes into play then it is sometimes difficult to draw a line in what is self-defense and what is pre-emptive aggression.
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
This is a good point here. You can learn martial arts techniques and render your assailant unable to hurt anyone or use a stun gun - that seems highly permissable to me. And if the assailant did suffer some injury - you can bet that his/her minor injury would be nothing compared to the injury family members would face - like immediate death or rape, etc. Good point Della.
Robert, think about this. I don’t want you to feel ganged up on, but think reasonably about this - life is sacred and valuable - but the issue comes down to protecting innocent life from those who would take advantage. It is a moral imperative to take care of those who need help. A good example is a new baby. This baby is helpless. To withhold nourishment and love would be immoral (and illegal). The same applies to any innocent person who is need. We then have the choice to protect life or endanger it.
Peace…
R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
Jesus told us to love our enemies. I personally would let anyone die; myself included rather than disobey my Lord and God. Now having said that I can only hope and pray that such a situation never happens, but if God allows me to be tested in such a way, I have to trust that He will give me the grace to live what He has taught me.
Bob
J
johnshelby
Guest
Robert Heibel:
well, i believe that’s a prayer we all pray… or i hope so…
V
Vonier
Guest
When Jesus cleared the Temple he did so with violence, driving people out, overturning their tables and scattering their wares. Was that a legitimate use of violence?
The Scriptural account is so sparing. Did he strike people to drive them out? Push them? What was Jesus’ motivation in these violent acts? Was he defending something? His house perhaps?
The Scriptural account is so sparing. Did he strike people to drive them out? Push them? What was Jesus’ motivation in these violent acts? Was he defending something? His house perhaps?
R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
Jesus is God, and who are we to question Him? My job is to hear His word and live it. In order to understand why He could use a whip and yet He told us not to, ask Him. Because He may have used a whip on some people, doesn’t give us the right to do the same. He wiped out a whole city and that sure doesn’t give us the right to do the same.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Robert Heibel:
As we have evidence of in Scripture (and since we are to emulate Him) of Jesus Himself using violence to throw out the money changers and the harlots from His house, so it is your duty also to protect your family and use violence only when necessary.
Exactly right, and since this is true you must do the honorable thing, be a man, and protect your house. Do not cower when your family is being taken advantage of.
As we have evidence of in Scripture (and since we are to emulate Him) of Jesus Himself using violence to throw out the money changers and the harlots from His house, so it is your duty also to protect your family and use violence only when necessary.
J
johnshelby
Guest
i believe the Spirit speaks to each of us, and not always with
the same message, as each person, and each person’s life
is not the same, and isn’t subject to the same temptations
and trials…
if Mr. Heibel says the Spirit spoke to him this way, i don’t
doubt it in the least… it’s not something that the Spirit
would not lead someone to do… now if he had said the Spirit
had told him to start shooting at cars… that would be different…
lol
we all have to listen to the Spirit with our own hearts… just as
Mr. Heibel has done… and try to do what we feel we are being
called to do…
the same message, as each person, and each person’s life
is not the same, and isn’t subject to the same temptations
and trials…
if Mr. Heibel says the Spirit spoke to him this way, i don’t
doubt it in the least… it’s not something that the Spirit
would not lead someone to do… now if he had said the Spirit
had told him to start shooting at cars… that would be different…
lol
we all have to listen to the Spirit with our own hearts… just as
Mr. Heibel has done… and try to do what we feel we are being
called to do…
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Yes, but it is also our duty to tell them when they are in error. Jesus never condemned violence for protecting yourself or your property, in fact he did just the opposite. We now have two conflicting issues, one with Scriptural support and one without. Therefore, we must let our brothers know when they are being misled.i believe the Spirit speaks to each of us, and not always with
the same message, as each person, and each person’s life
is not the same, and isn’t subject to the same temptations
and trials…
if Mr. Heibel says the Spirit spoke to him this way, i don’t
doubt it in the least… it’s not something that the Spirit
would not lead someone to do… now if he had said the Spirit
had told him to start shooting at cars… that would be different…
lol
we all have to listen to the Spirit with our own hearts… just as
Mr. Heibel has done… and try to do what we feel we are being
called to do…
God Bless.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Robert Heibel:
At some point you have to make the moral decision on innocent life versus non-innocent life. For example, in war usually nations do not target civilians - they target the opposing military - because by opposing the military they can defeat them and end the war - that’s the point - to end it. So, you protect civilians and innocents while subduing your enemy.
And again, you don’t have to kill the enemy. You only need to stop them from attacking you using various methods like I explained - be they stun guns (which do not seriously injure) or martial arts/self defense maneuvers. It’s about stopping them from hurting you and others - not about killing.
Peace…
Yes, friend, He told us to love our enemies. He didn’t tell us to let our enemies rape our women and kill them. And, you know, that’s only one verse out of thousands compiled in Scripture. We each have to take all Scripture and hash out the meaning to make sure we are interpreting correctly.
At some point you have to make the moral decision on innocent life versus non-innocent life. For example, in war usually nations do not target civilians - they target the opposing military - because by opposing the military they can defeat them and end the war - that’s the point - to end it. So, you protect civilians and innocents while subduing your enemy.
And again, you don’t have to kill the enemy. You only need to stop them from attacking you using various methods like I explained - be they stun guns (which do not seriously injure) or martial arts/self defense maneuvers. It’s about stopping them from hurting you and others - not about killing.
Peace…
V
Vonier
Guest
“Jesus is God, and who are we to question Him? My job is to hear His word and live it. In order to understand why He could use a whip and yet He told us not to, ask Him. Because He may have used a whip on some people, doesn’t give us the right to do the same. He wiped out a whole city and that sure doesn’t give us the right to do the same.”
So…Jesus tells us to “do as I say, not as I do”?
So…Jesus tells us to “do as I say, not as I do”?
R
Robert_Heibel
Guest
Vonier said:
Who are you “man” to question God?
- Status