It was the Jews that rejected God and picked up the sword.

Doesn't change or excuse the fact Jesus commanded them to kill criminals and combatants. Doesn't change the fact you believe Jesus commanded them to sin.

IF - IF - the people obeyed in the first place, they would have been in Canaan shortly after leaving Egypt and would not have needed to use the sword at all. It was not God's purpose that they should gain the land by warfare.[/quote]


The great controversy - I wonder what you think the controversy is about, hard for me to tell! God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth. Blink - all done. As EGW says in the book, The Desire of Ages. Why did God not do this? Sure would have saved a lot of problems, right? Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. {DA 759.1} God's principles are not of this order! The use of force is contrary to God. We see this in His dealings with the Egyptians. (Yes, we do!) And we would have seen it if the people would have obeyed God and taken the land which was given to them as a gift. But they refused. They rebelled. They went backwards not forwards. They over and over and over and over rejected God's methods. WHY do WE today reject God's methods? We have no excuse!!!



IF - IF - the people obeyed in the first place, they would have been in Canaan shortly after leaving Egypt and would not have needed to use the sword at all. It was not God's purpose that they should gain the land by warfare.


The great controversy - I wonder what you think the controversy is about, hard for me to tell! God could have destroyed Satan and his sympathizers as easily as one can cast a pebble to the earth. Blink - all done. As EGW says in the book, The Desire of Ages. Why did God not do this? Sure would have saved a lot of problems, right? Rebellion was not to be overcome by force. Compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. His authority rests upon goodness, mercy, and love; and the presentation of these principles is the means to be used. God's government is moral, and truth and love are to be the prevailing power. {DA 759.1} God's principles are not of this order! The use of force is contrary to God. We see this in His dealings with the Egyptians. (Yes, we do!) And we would have seen it if the people would have obeyed God and taken the land which was given to them as a gift. But they refused. They rebelled. They went backwards not forwards. They over and over and over and over rejected God's methods. WHY do WE today reject God's methods? We have no excuse!!!

Do you know any of the history of this verse, how it reads in other manuscripts? Regardless, what did Jesus do? Consider the woman taken in adultery, in the very act! Did Jesus condemn her? Nope. John 3:18-21 He that believes on him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that does truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in God.

MM, you seem to be straddling the fence, or jumping from one side to another.

You say one place where by your sheer definition it is not sin to obey whatever Jesus commands. Then you say it would be sin. But yet you say, obeying the command to kill means of itself that it is not murder. Why can't you just say that it is not sin following Jesus' command to murder?

What you mean is that you really don't have a definition of murder. You say it is explained in the Bible, but you demonstrate you do not know where at nor what the difference is.

Which is what I've said at the beginning. You don't know the difference between right and wrong, you make no distinction. So why do you object to saying that you believe Jesus commanded the Jews to murder? All you need to say is murder is not wrong if Jesus tells you to do it. Like the papacy.

I figured you'd add another. Killing, murder, capital punishment, and now war? Really?

Tell us, how is it justified for capital punishment against children? Ever know of a judge giving capital punishment to a child? But yet you think Jesus does. And you think that's not wrong? But oh, you say, it's war and "enemy combatants". A child is an "enemy combatant"? Really?


But then again, if you don't have a difference between murder and killing, then how could you possibly say that saying Jesus commanded the Jews to murder would be a sin?

You make no sense. You, confused by your own internal thoughts, contradict yourself.

And the devil wins in both sides of the argument that has been on the top of the list here for a long, long time.

For indeed God commanded the killing of commandment breakers and certain heathen in the OT dispensation.

And Christians, Muslims and other religions have thought, some still think and soon most will think that God has given them the command to carry on in this type of religious cleansing in the NT dispensation.

It's been the dreadful state of things in the dark ages, it's now happening in some other lands and will soon happen in our fair lands -- people will think they are obeying God's command in persecuting and killing those who refuse to follow the state proclaimed religion.


It would be far wiser to just leave this in the loving/righteous hands of our heavenly High Priest Who died to save a perishing world and give eternal life to all Who would come to Him and it is He alone that has the authority to declare who will live for eternity and who will not.

APL, Jesus commanded killing criminals and combatants. You avoid this truth at all cost.

I do not believe it is a sin to obey Jesus.

1. Moses did not sin when he obeyed Jesus' command to kill criminals and combatants.

2. Joshua did not sin when he obeyed Jesus' command to kill criminals and combatants.

3. Samuel did not sin when he obeyed Jesus' command to kill criminals and combatants.

4. King David did not sin when he obeyed Jesus' command to kill criminals and combatants.

5. King Solomon did not sin when he obeyed Jesus' command to kill criminals and combatants.


I have never said it is a sin to obey Jesus.


It is never a sin to obey Jesus.


Saying so wouldn't make it so. The Bible makes a distinction between obeying Jesus and murder:


You can have your own opinions but you cannot have not your own facts. The Bible is clear. "The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer . . . he shall not be guilty of blood"! The people who executed capital punishment were not guilty of blood or guilty of murder. "The murderer shall surely be put to death."

God is the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow. If you really want to know what God is like, look at Jesus.

Jesus commanded the Jews to kill criminals and combatants.

God had His reasons for doing what He did back then, but we know that since the cross we no longer live in a theocratic society, we live under the kingdom of grace in which the light from the cross defines the results of sin and the assurance of salvation.

If you really want to know where all this may be leading you just go to the Ezekiel 9 thread and you will see where this is leading.

(Though a lot of people can't see beyond the exchange of quotes as to what the agenda really is)

We are warned--



Ezekiel nine is being used by several groups of "offshoots" to declare nearly all Adventists must be killed before the message goes out to the world -- before the Sunday laws even come.

All it will take is for some self proclaimed prophet who has a zealous following to declare God commanded him to do it so the "last work can move forward" and ......