Tony Spell has church in spite of the ban

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Notice how, instead of actually dealing with what was said, you create this red herring and straw man (with a side dish of ad hominem) about people on the forum greatly preferring to rely on Smith and Wesson or the AR 15 INSTEAD of calling upon and trusting God.

By the way, an AR-15 is a wifle. No, that's not a mispelling. Real rifle calibers start with at least a "3" just like real pistol calibers start with at least a "4", with one exception - the .357 magnum (from a 6" barrel).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by james34

So much error in the post above.

1) The credibility of the church in the eyes of carnal man was always in question.
There is always a point where the church has to decide it is doing the will of God even if it doesn’t please man. “ Whether we ought to obey man rather than God”
...and the church( not carnal man) has to decide where that point is.

The 1918 pandemic did not get its momentum from internet social media and MSN media hype. People witnesses with their own eyes mass death. They were not reacting on here say or a news report .

There is a place where it’s better to die in faith than to live in fear at the expense of faith being cast aside.

Heb 11:35 - Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection

The pandemic of 1918 was caused by experimental "vaccines" and cross-reaction with the newly established electric and radio grids, and was proven to be non-communicable by ordinary social contact and even by sick people directly breathing into the mouths and lungs of healthy people.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Notice how, instead of actually dealing with what was said, you create this red herring and straw man (with a side dish of ad hominem) about people on the forum greatly preferring to rely on Smith and Wesson or the AR 15 INSTEAD of calling upon and trusting God.

And there's the additional misrepresentation that people on this forum want to "fight" in the same context that Jesus talked about when He referenced the possibility or probability of His disciples taking up arms to prevent His execution.

I learned a long time ago that when person A makes a point, and person B responds by utterly misrepresenting person A, it is because person B has no argument and person A is likely correct.

Esaias, you have repeatedly used the “sword” reference as a way to magnify your self defense theology. Don’t draw away with your person A, and person B scenario to make yourself as the one who sees all and knows all about this topic.

Matter of fact you even wrote about how some will look to appreciate a Pastor that takes out a “bad guy” if he threatens the church.

Originally Posted by Esaias

And about that "calling on Smith and Wesson vs calling on the name of the Lord"...

To the chief Musician for the sons of Korah, Maschil. We have heard with our ears, O God, our fathers have told us, what work thou didst in their days, in the times of old. How thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand, and plantedst them; how thou didst afflict the people, and cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them: but thy right hand, and thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst a favour unto them. Thou art my King, O God: command deliverances for Jacob. Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us. For I will not trust in my bow, neither shall my sword save me. But thou hast saved us from our enemies, and hast put them to shame that hated us. In God we boast all the day long, and praise thy name for ever. Selah.
(Psa 44:1-8)

A few remarks:

1. This is a retelling of the basic story of how Israel took possession of the land of Canaan.

2. David and the old timers who were devout asserted they did NOT achieve victory through their own swords and arrows, by their own force of arms.

3. They did not trust in their weapons or military skills.

4. God is the One who gave them victory. God is the One in whom they trusted. God is the One upon whose name they called.

5. Yet it is an historical fact verified by even a modest perusal of the Bible that the Conquest of Canaan was achieved through the mechanism of military force of arms.

You’re absolutely right! I agree with you, as I have said to Jito463. Yet, what both of you are misunderstanding is, the highlighted portion.

Deuteronomy 20:16-19
[16] But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
[17] But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely , the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
[18] That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the Lord your God.
[19] When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man's life ) to employ them in the siege:

1 Samuel 15:2-3
[2] Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
[3] Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

There is more references, yet for the sake of time I’m not going to list them all. My point is, the Lord Commanded them to take the land! The Lord Commanded them to kill the inhabitants of the land. Sometimes they used weapons and other times they didn’t. The ONLY reason they were able to say they gained victory, and you’re able to quote it was because he (The LORD) COMMANDED them.

Now, is the Lord commanding you take possession of some land? Is there a promised land out there that you gearing up for a war with the heathen? Sorry, Brother. We’re not living in the Old Covenant anymore, were not fighting for the promised land in a physical way. The scriptures you are quoting are not in reference to carry a weapon, or using a gun in self defense, there in fact scriptures on how the Israelites under the influence of the Lord God conquered their enemies for the possession of the promised land. Once again, because God told them to.

Under the New Covenant, I’m sorry its no longer that way. Ill say it to you, as I said it yesterday. You cannot follow every word of the Old Covenant and do what they did, and expect to live in the spiritual kingdom with Christ. The Old Covenant was not complete, it was completed by the New Covenant, and this covenant says, Love your enemies. Is that hard, absolutely!

Originally Posted by Esaias

YOU and the other pseudo-pacificists* (see note below) on this board would have us believe there is a DILEMMA, that it is one or the other, that you can either trust God or use a weapon. But the BIBLE teaches that it is NOT a "one or the other" situation. The Bible teaches us that BY FAITH and TRUSTING in the Lord, by CALLING ON HIS NAME, the faithful of old WAGED ACTUAL PHYSICAL MILITARY WAR AGAINST THEIR ENEMIES AND PREVAILED.

I mean no disrespect. But, you ought to try living in the kingdom Jesus is reigning in. The Kingdom that we have now, is NOT a Physical, Military War against their enemies!

NOTE****

This is exactly why the Pharisees hated Jesus. He would not wage war against Rome. He came on Love, and they were still blood thirsty for Old time bloodshed. Even to this day, they consider Jesus the failed Messiah, because he didnt “deliver” them. Having eyes and they see not.... I read that somewhere?

Originally Posted by Esaias

It even says "Through thee will we push down our enemies: through thy name will we tread them under that rise up against us."

Still Old Covenant. You ever wonder why you cant provide scripture that supports your Militarized Kingdom in the New Covenant?

Originally Posted by Esaias

So once again, you are proving you do not actually believe the Bible. But instead you believe some other religion you like to call "Christianity".

Brother, not only do I believe the Bible, I understand what Kingdom I’m apart of.

Originally Posted by Esaias

*Note: I say "pseudo pacificists" because you people aren't REAL pacificists. You are perfectly fine with someone ELSE doing the "dirty work" for you. You have no problem with police using weapons, force, and even deadly force to enforce the laws. If your house were broken into, you know full well that after you had your prayer you would "trust in Jesus" to enable the cops to find and forcibly detain and imprison the thief by use of deadly weapons and if the cops killed the thief in the process you would just be like "Oh, that's too bad and so sad, but play stupid games win stupid prizes. Many such cases."

Amirite? You KNOW I'm right.

A TRUE pacificist abhors and protests and disavows the use of force at all times by all people in all situations. PERIOD. But that's not you guys. You aren't real pacificists, anymore than you are real Bible believers.

Brother, I don’t believe in killing (unless it ducks). I abhor the death penalty, I dont like war. yet I understand there is two kingdoms.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

This is exactly why the Pharisees hated Jesus. He would not wage war against Rome. He came on Love, and they were still blood thirsty for Old time bloodshed. Even to this day, they consider Jesus the failed Messiah, because he didnt “deliver” them. Having eyes and they see not.... I read that somewhere?

I wonder what Jesus would think about taking a whip and driving people out of the church. Doesn't sound like a very pacifist thing to do.

[Esaias]

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
(Joh 11:47-48)

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
(Joh 19:12-15)

The Pharisees did not hate Jesus because He wouldn't raise an army and go to war with Rome. The Pharisees and the Sadducees conspired together to kill Jesus to PREVENT conflict with Rome.

Some people just keep on proving the point that they don't know and/or don't believe the Bible.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I wonder what Jesus would think about taking a whip and driving people out of the church. Doesn't sound like a very pacifist thing to do.

Not only that, but the Temple was a government building. He'd be denounced as a terrorist by the average "Christian" these days.

[TGBTG]

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:

And? Where's the connection that proves this verse means we shouldn't defend ourselves?

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

By all means Brother, buy a sword. I’m not against a man buying a sword.

I don’t have a sword. I’m so ashamed. But I do have shotguns and rifles and knives and muzzleloaders and pistols. You know, just in case I get attacked by ducks. Ducks are getting so aggressive these days!

But just in case I have a snake, or a hooligan or even a hoodlum, or some other aggressive form of wildlife cross my path, and perhaps pose a threat to my family or even to a lesser extent my property, I may possibly press these firearms and weapons into double service. If it works for ducks, who knows what it would do for snakes and alligators. (Hypothetically speaking of course and in a very spiritual manner.)

Hey, speaking of alligators and rifles, I understand that Tony Spell done went and shot an alligator, and I understand that it wasn’t even a politician! Hey, a man’s gotta eat, right? And of course he needs shoes and belts and things.

Now he’s really gonna be in trouble!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

And there's the additional misrepresentation that people on this forum want to "fight" in the same context that Jesus talked about when He referenced the possibility or probability of His disciples taking up arms to prevent His execution.

I learned a long time ago that when person A makes a point, and person B responds by utterly misrepresenting person A, it is because person B has no argument and person A is likely correct.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
(Joh 11:47-48)

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
(Joh 19:12-15)

The Pharisees did not hate Jesus because He wouldn't raise an army and go to war with Rome. The Pharisees and the Sadducees conspired together to kill Jesus to PREVENT conflict with Rome.

Some people just keep on proving the point that they don't know and/or don't believe the Bible.

Originally Posted by TGBTG

35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?

36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews:

See? Case in point.

Jesus' words are about His disciples interfering with His plan to go to the cross. It is not about self defense nor is it about war in general.

In the world system (kosmos, "world order", the socio-political and religious SYSTEM or "arrangement") a king who was captured by foreign forces had LOST HIS KINGDOM. So a kingdom "of this WORLD ORDER" or SYSTEM would require its citizens to take up arms to prevent their king from being captured and executed and effectively destroying his kingdom.

Jesus, however, was destined by prophecy to be delivered into the hands of His enemies and be put to death. This was the Divinely ordained means by which His kingdom would be established. It was through His death that He took victory over His enemies, because He resurrected from the dead. Thus He was victorious over even death. His kingdom was not part of the world order. It was part of God's order.

So His disciples were NOT to interfere in the Divine Plan, otherwise they would be fighting against God.

This is why Jesus called Peter "satan" when Peter affirmed that he was opposed to Jesus being arrested and crucified. Peter was taking a stand AGAINST the Plan of God, albeit it ignorantly. This is also why when Peter attacked the cops trying to arrest Jesus, Jesus told him to holster his weapon. Christ affirmed that if He so desired, He could ask God for about 50,000 angelic warriors for His defense, and God would supply them. But rather, He INTENDED TO BE ARRESTED, TRIED, AND EXECUTED. So Peter was out of line.

Why? Why was Peter out of line? Because he was armed? Because he engaged in armed defense against armed soldiers?

No.

It was because He was attempting to stop the crucifixion. Jesus didn't tell him "Get rid of that sword," nor did He tell Peter "What's wrong with you? Don't you know using physical force is ALWAYS WRONG AT ALL TIMES?" Instead, He said "Stop what you are doing and put your sword back into its sheath, your help here is not needed nor is it part of my plan."