Church Discussion

[pop pop]

In our new quarter subject in Bible study, we are talking about the subject of being courageous men in our men's class. I will be interested to see of safety and security will be discussed by anyone.

I will bet you not one of the teachers will discuss personal safety in any way, shape, or form----but I WILL before the class ends this quarter. Working on my presentation now.

I don't understand how a man can teach others about being courageous, in the leadership of our families, if one does not talk about all aspects of it. Providing safety to ones family, and church family is very important in this day in time.

The opening teacher, in the class interdiction, said that the Apostle Peter, when he took his sword and cut Malceious's ear off was not courageous(Matthew 26:51) . I called him on that one. Told him he was very courageous as Peter just told Jesus he was ready to die for Him. The act of cutting the ear off a Roman, by a Jew, was a death sentence offense. Guys, it took courage to cut that ear off knowing he could be put to death. After all Peter was using the sword that Jesus told the apostles to go and purchase.

Now I ask you another question? Why did Jesus tell them(11 apostles) to purchase a sword (Luke 22:36-38) and they told him they bought 2 and he said it was enough. My opinion, it was for personal protection because He had just told them He was no longer going to be with the apostles and they were going to need to take care of themselves.

I am curious to see if anyone will bring the subject up in class. By the way, my knee replacement DR, who was in the class, confronted the statement about Peter not having courage also. He was in agreement with me that it was very courageous what Peter did.

The teacher said, well Peter was presumptuous in what he did. I met him after class to ask him to clarify that and he said Peter did things without thinking them through and acted impulsively. That still did not explained to me why what he did was not courageous, even though what he did caused Jesus to scold Peter for taking a sword and trying to prevent His sacrificing Himself for all of mankind.

I know I am preaching to the choir here, but I intend to hold this guys feet to the fire on this subject, if I can. I want to discuss personal and church safety along with all the other courageous things a Christian man is responsible to do in his church and personal life.

I applaud our church leadership discussing this subject in our men's class. All of us need to know what to do when confronted with situations, while doing our daily walk in life, of a spiritual nature. I also believe the confrontation of evil is also a subject that need to be addressed along with those of a spiritual encounter. 

Anyone care to comment on this?

Edited April 16, 2018 by pop pop

[res308]

I was talking about this with a pastor one day. He brought up 1 Timothy 5:8 where it talks about a man denying the faith and being worse than an unbeliever if he will not provide for his own household. He made a very good point, I thought, when he said that this is not only talking about providing a living for your family, but providing protection as well. 

It souds to me like you might have a hard time selling that side of the argument with some people at your church. I've run into the same problem at mine. 

We live in an age where the doctrine of pacifism has been sold to and practiced by the church for several generations now. It might be hard to overcome that pacifist mindset in the church as a whole, but it is a worthy fight. 

[Raoul]

So reconcile  Matthew 5:39.

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.
 

[res308]

I dunno. That one has always been interesting to me as well. If we followed the doctrines of some people when they bring up that verse we would gleefully allow some thug to come in and slaughter our entire family and not be allowed to lift a hand to defend them. But I've also heard or read some translation of that somewhere (it's been more than 5 minutes ago so I don't remember) that that concept referred to that time in which it was written where a slap to the face was a supreme insult. 

I'm really not sure how to translate that, and I don't claim to have all the answers. I just know what I believe, that Jesus Christ is Lord, that He alone has redeemed me (as unworthy as I am), and that he who doth chooseth to-eth raise-eth his'n own hand agin my family shall be slaughtered forthwith and forever more (there's my mix of "olde englishe" and redneck).

[gregintenn]

21 minutes ago, Raoul said:

So reconcile  Matthew 5:39.

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.
 

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?

[E4 No More]

20 minutes ago, Raoul said:

So reconcile  Matthew 5:39.

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.
 

I reconcile it this way: Who was Jesus talking to? Answer: the Jews, who couldn't wrap their heads around the fact of how distorted their thinking had become - particularly, the fact that no one was justified by the law. The root cause of the issue for most conflicts of the bible come from people not reading in context of to whom it was being spoken. In 2 Timothy 2:15 it says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Jesus is the word: therefore, you must know how to rightly divide what he was saying whether it be to the Jews, Gentiles, or the Saints.

[Raoul]

12 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?

But that's Old Testament.

 

[gregintenn]

Just now, Raoul said:

But that's Old Testament.

 

Yes sir.

There's a lot of good information there that should not be overlooked.

[Raoul]

4 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

Jesus is the word: therefore, you must know how to rightly divide what he was saying whether it be to the Jews, Gentiles, or the Saints.

And therein is the problem with religion. Human interpretation.

[Grunt67]

35 minutes ago, Raoul said:

So reconcile  Matthew 5:39.

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.
 

OK up to a point, but you only have two cheeks. Just saying............

[gregintenn]

Just now, Grunt67 said:

OK up to a point, but you only have two cheeks. Just saying............

Four if you count.........ummm nevermind.

[E4 No More]

7 minutes ago, Raoul said:

And therein is the problem with religion. Human interpretation.

It's not at all hard to to determine who the intended audience is. The problem that I see is people being lazy by hiring someone to tell them what they are supposed to think. Notice that the beginning of that verse that I quoted did NOT say, "Hire some preacher/pastor/priest/bishop/rabbi to tell you what to think." It specifically puts the onus on us to study the bible for ourselves, but also warns us to do it correctly.

[Raoul]

12 minutes ago, Grunt67 said:

OK up to a point, but you only have two cheeks. Just saying............

Ain't it the truth...

For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counselor?
Romans 11:34

 

[Raoul]

2 minutes ago, SWJewellTN said:

It's not at all hard to to determine who the intended audience is. The problem that I see is people being lazy by hiring someone to tell them what they are supposed to think. Notice that the beginning of that verse that I quoted did NOT say, "Hire some preacher/pastor/priest/bishop/rabbi to tell you what to think." It specifically puts the onus on us to study the bible for ourselves, but also warns us to do it correctly.

There's the rub...

[Ski]

38 minutes ago, Raoul said:

So reconcile  Matthew 5:39.

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.

 

17 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth?

If you go back and read Matthew 5:38, you will see that Jesus is bringing interpretation of that Old Testament principle in verse 39.

I found the explanation Matt Terhune provided at a men's Bible study a few years back quite helpful in understanding that verse.  If you are interested in the details, you can go to about 17:00 at the link below.  The summary is that the behavior described in verse 39 is an insult.  Jesus is not talking about not defending yourself or your family from an attack but about not retaliating.  The overall context is about how to respond to mistreatment.  Trying to make it about not stopping an attack is taking the verse out of context.

http://www.2pc.org/resources/audio-library/true-righteousness-your-actions/#

 

[E4 No More]

Another of my favorite versus is Romans 14:4 "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

God has many servants, and it's not my job to judge them.

[Grunt67]

Interpretations of the Bible are like polls. Depends on who's doing the interpretations & who's conducting the poll. You can get a grain of salt for each for little or nothing.

 

[peejman]

3 hours ago, Ski said:

 

If you go back and read Matthew 5:38, you will see that Jesus is bringing interpretation of that Old Testament principle in verse 39.

I found the explanation Matt Terhune provided at a men's Bible study a few years back quite helpful in understanding that verse.  If you are interested in the details, you can go to about 17:00 at the link below.  The summary is that the behavior described in verse 39 is an insult.  Jesus is not talking about not defending yourself or your family from an attack but about not retaliating.  The overall context is about how to respond to mistreatment.  Trying to make it about not stopping an attack is taking the verse out of context.

http://www.2pc.org/resources/audio-library/true-righteousness-your-actions/#

 

I agree with this. "Turn the other cheek" isn't applicable if someone is trying to kill you. It's meant more toward verbal or minor physical abuse. 

[pop pop]

Raoul, I reconcile Matt 5:39 with the same as others here have. The context of the use of the word evil was in not retaliating for being insulted or the taking or vengeance on a Christians behalf.  In other words, if someone insults you, slaps you on the cheek, don't in turn take you fist and knock him to the ground.  Perhaps I used a bad choice of words (evil) because if you listen to the news media, after a school shooting, all sorts of people refer to the shooter as an evil person or the evil thing he did. The use of the word evil was wrong on my part. The crux of my statement was on safety and security of our families, church families, and self protection, or self defense if you will. 

We are discussing what a courageous Christian man must do in situation one finds himself in. Most of our study surrounds spiritual situations, such as bad language, telling of dirty jokes, and the courage to tell someone you don't want to hear the language or participate in dirty jokes, while doing that with love, among many other situations. We are trying to live our religion. 

I would like to discuss personal and family safety and security. I want the subject of self defense and defense of one's family discussed in the realm of this study. Frankly I have never heard a discussion on this subject in an open forum where one may ask questions and discuss a matter. I have heard preachers and others discuss the subject of self defense, but never in an open forum setting.

 

Raoul, do you believe self defense or defense of one's family is allowed in the Bible, or do you treat your security and safety to the mantra of (Matt 5:39) turn the other cheek?  

Edited April 16, 2018 by pop pop

[res308]

4 hours ago, SWJewellTN said:

I reconcile it this way: Who was Jesus talking to? Answer: the Jews, who couldn't wrap their heads around the fact of how distorted their thinking had become - particularly, the fact that no one was justified by the law. The root cause of the issue for most conflicts of the bible come from people not reading in context of to whom it was being spoken. In 2 Timothy 2:15 it says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Jesus is the word: therefore, you must know how to rightly divide what he was saying whether it be to the Jews, Gentiles, or the Saints.

And I myself have fallen short many times on the rightly dividing the word of truth. I need to get back to studying more. I must admit that there are times when I find myself wishing that the language was more clear on certain subjects. "

I forgot to mention that in a lot of cases I've heard people use the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" to justify their refusal to raise a hand against another in defense, or to justify their condemnation of others for doing so. From what I have read, this was another instance of "lost in translation" where it concerns the language used in the KJV, where it was sort of "old english." I believe the literal translation into current English is "you shall not murder." From what I've read, the word "kill" was used in old english to refer to murder, and the word slay was also used in some contexts, as in "slay the enemy" for example, which was not referring to murder. In other words, the same God who commanded not to murder also sent his people out to kill the enemy. I need to research that again.

Edited April 16, 2018 by res308
additions n such

[Raoul]

I believe the old song Onward Christian Soldiers is apt. My religious beliefs are sometime an odd mix and certainly not skewed to one denomination and sometimes to one belief. I also would defend any man's right to worship in a way he sees fit.

Anything else seems wrong in my eyes. I think our nation was built on this concept and should be defended against any group that thinks otherwise. No matter who they are and what they purport to believe. Without this view I believe our nation is doomed to failure. At least in the eyes of the lord.

 

[pop pop]

One point re: the passage where Jesus tells them (11 apostles) to buy a sword, they tell Him 'We have two', and he says 'That's enough'(Luke 22:35-38)--I believe the argument could be made that being armed for self defense isn't a problem; however, Christians are not to 'arm to the teeth' and go out as a conquering army, forcing 'conversions' at sword-point. We're having world-wide trouble with a certain religion which has taken the latter view.
 

 

[bersaguy]

5 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Four if you count.........ummm nevermind.

I thought a couple of them where ummm ahh ! buttocks but then I have been wrong about other things also and I will turn my cheeks on either sides of my nose but when it comes to the other 2 there will be a line drawn that it might not be to smart to cross. I think that is when the Tomahawks come into play..........JMHO

[gregintenn]

I'd begin my conversation by asking everyone in the room the purpose of our country's military. I assume the common answer would be to protect our country. If that is indeed the case, I'd suggest that if one has no problem protecting one's country via force if necessary, then I wouldn't expect him to have a problem doing the same for himself or his family.

[Raoul]

16 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I'd begin my conversation by asking everyone in the room the purpose of our country's military. I assume the common answer would be to protect our country. If that is indeed the case, I'd suggest that if one has no problem protecting one's country via force if necessary, then I wouldn't expect him to have a problem doing the same for himself or his family.

Always the voice of reason. Thanks for your input brother.