Brady Patrick I wouldn't like that my Father was killed, But that's what happens, What they did was justified, what if your father was Mugging someone and he got shot, is that not justified?
Jesus Jimenez Mr Turek..lol he just couldnt answer...He says Old Testament not needed and also at 2:53 entire bible not needed cause morality is in our hearts....Then he fumbles the Get a Sword vs Rebuking of using the sword, murder vs killing..If we had to revise the bible just a few pages would remain...
@@ThatGoodBarbequ yes. If you kill my father before he kills you after he broke into your home, I would be on your side and pray for my father. We are all brothers and sisters of one true father. His laws are above ours. I would cry, but I would be ok with it.
Brother Frank, i don't know if you will read this, but i'm God very thankful for your life and the knowledge that is given to you 😭 .. I had a call yesterday with a brother and he said we are at times hypocrites Halil and i said yes, but it didn't really came through, only a certain level. But now i watched this video and heard your answer and now it came through and in my heart. How many times we can feel offended and take it personal by someone saying this about us, which makes us going into defence? And how often we result in standing against others instead of next to others? I cryed while i typed this, and it really opened my eyes. I know our walk with the most WONDERFUL ever Jesus Christ isn't about feeling holier or better than anyone. But this really touched my heart because at times i did feel offended by things like this. We have to point others to Christ and the cross without losing the cross out of sight ourselves. In the end we all need Him as much as everyone, also for our moments of being hypocrites like the rest around us. We have our moments, that we are hypocrites as christians. But we are so blessed that in Christ it doesn't determine our identity in Christ and how God looks at us in Christ! May God bless you and your family and your work abundatly, again i'm thankful to God for your life! ❤️😭🙏🏽
“If we were perfect we wouldn’t need a savior” I love that becuase it’s so true. So many atheists superimpose this concept that Christians are perfect but that just not true. We are merely trying to improve ourselves to be the best we can be. To stop sinning, to stop gossiping etc.
So god is also not perfect? Since he created such a mess of a world, i mean the bible stories themself are a tale of gods monumental constant failures.
VolvoMetal you perception isn’t wrong and it’s funny. God successfully lead help Moses lead the people out of Egypt and so much more you not very intelligent are you?
@@Orelio_Ceferino_de_Pamplona I wouldn't really call having tons of people killed to show off and leading "his people" wandering around in a desert for 40 years success. But anyhow, this is stories in a book, that we can't verify even happened... Seems more like made up myths for people to feel important
I think it's because many assume Christianity is a works based religion. You need to do many good things and no bad things, which is impossible for humans in an imperfect world. This is the whole reason why we need a saviour and why Jesus died on the cross and came back to life 3 days later. Jesus payed for our wages of sin.
Morality is one of those fun topics. It is something that is so obvious that people rarely look into why it is the way it is. Thus, deeper thoughts on the subject are rare in the public sphere. Over all I like this answer he gave.
I agree with you on this issue, the disciple suffered many trials and tribulations, in gloried in their tribulations, and Jesus said if they persecute you in one city flee to another. Now it's obvious you don't just stand around and let yourself be killed if someone is after your life, but attempting to defuse the situation, or even fleeing before deciding to just kill him before he kills me would run through my mind taking every provision for peace, just thinking I have right to self-defense in pulling the trigger may be a false entitlement you think you have from the Bible in a heart check would really be necessary, but this is why we are in relationship with Jesus Christ I'm pretty sure he will lead us through that horrible a situation.
@@ChirstInTheDistance Years ago, I severely injured a young man who had insulted me and further provoked me by shoving me. I wasn't out of control when I kicked him, but I was angry. I knew immediately that I'd hurt him, but didn't know until the following week how badly I'd injured him, and felt terrible about it, because I never intended the result of that kick. If one can do that kind of damage to one who insults one, I can only imagine what one can do when defending the life of a loved one. And don't think God doesn't know or understanding the capabilities of a man or woman faced with that scenario. God is the Judge in these situations. Its our duty to defend and protect the weak from aggressors.
AMEN. When Paul said " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. " he was referring to the scripture they had at the time, which is the old testament II Timothy 3:16
If u want to say Christians have to keep Moses Law of OT you are wrong. The Apostles followed and Jesus kept (and fullfilled) the law before he was resurrected because 1. they were Israelis and 2. At this time they were under the law. But as you maybe know in the NT they are under Grace by the new Covenant and pretty clearly say that we are no longer under that law. Read Galatans
@Larry Cavalli The other apostles affirmed Paul's teaching and apostleship. You're free of course to reinterpret Christianity in a new way that is different from any other Christian on earth--as even the earliest post-apostolic church leaders accepted Paul's teaching as authoritative--but it would be probably best to realize you are doing your own thing, completely disconnected from the 2000-year-old Christian tradition and not call it Christianity.
@Larry Cavalli But if Paul's story is correct, he was not self-appointed. Rather, he was appointed by Christ on the Damascus Rd. And as mentioned, he is accepted by the other apostles and is mentioned in their letters.
"When we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.. That's why it is written on our hearts" If that is true, god didn't need to hand down any commandments.
@@kait4824 " the commandments are only clarification. Meaning even those who never hear the gospel, morals are still in our hearts" Why would clarification be needed? Was god too inept to write the morals clearly on our hearts ? Do you obey the Bible's commandments? Do you agree with the Bible's commandments?
@@cnault3244 Dr. Turek explains this, near the end of the video. He explains how Noah, and the early prophets did not have the commandments. But they still had the basic human morale that we have
@Lauren Ferris the prophecy of "he was numbered among the transgressors" was established by not only his claim that "before Moses was, I am": he was also tried and convicted by the Sanhedrin, beaten and put to death between actual criminals. The fact that he said to the disciples to go and buy swords, has nothing to do with why Jesus was considered a criminal, and everything to do with the fact that they would become hated, hunted, and mistreated by evil people for the gospels sake: which they were!
@@joshuageographic6201 the translation from the original Hebrew into English is not pure. According to Hebrew scholars, the the English word "kill" is not a correct translation. The Hebrew meaning is closer to commit "Murder". If you have read and know the Law given Moses concerning "Sanctuary cities", where God told Moses to establish for those who killed someone accidentally to flee, until guilt was establishedby Jewish trial by God's Law the true intention of the purpetrator as to guilt or innocence of the crime. Also when God commanded Joshua and Israel to go into the promised land and kill everything and everyone, was GOD telling his people to ignoring his own commandment to not kill, or was he telling them to go and murder ( kill out of anger and personal satisfaction)? Or; was they simply following the orders of the Most High GOD who had judged the nation's in question?
We are made in the image and *likeness* of God. So that's the reason that even without the bible or even without believing in God we are moral beings, just not morally perfect beings.
mrjo2thec And where is your evidence? You are making an assertive claim without truth. The burden of proof lies on everyone, yet you refuse to bring any.
STREEEEEET says: *No. That's just what the Bible says. Why are you saying it as if it is literal truth?* Because it is true. *The Bible is not a factual book, as an adult you should know this by now.* Yes, the bible is a factual book. There is nothing in the bible that is not factual, of course you do have to view things from the correct and proper perspective in order to clearly see that.
@ Made of metal Morality isn't learned through experience and I can prove it. God back to telling your first lie as a child I guarantee you knew you were lying when you told that lie.
Who ever lives by the sword dies by the sword. One must have a sword to fight the sword. Self defence, is an eye for an eye. The LORD Jesus asks us to go above and love those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you so that we let our light shine to those living in darkness that they might know we are children of the most high. What reward is there for man who loves the ones who love him and hate the ones who hate him.
An eye for an eye is seeking vengeance for the wrong committed against you, generally by way of revenge. Self defense, protecting ourselves or others against one who is trying to hurt or kill them or us is not an eye for an eye. To put our lives on the line to protect another is loving your neighbor as yourself. This is an just act and the Bible speaks very highly on justice.
Jason0331 my comment is directed at the person who came in the house. Notice the word of GOD saith who ever lives by the sword ( the instigator) will die by the sword. Thanks
Sheriff Bang , you missed the verses were Jesus commanded his followers to sell their coats to buy a sword, and to bring anyone who opposed him and slay them in front of him. Where’s love?
@@Nkosi766 where does it say that AT ALL in the scripture to slay them in front of Jesus???? Stop twisting scripture thats not what it says. It says "Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" LUQAS (LUKE) 22:36 את CEPHER
Luke 19:27 New International Version 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
I take issue at Mr Turek's comments ~ :54, as he said that: "Much of the Bible is not binding on us, anymore." Much of what we know about holiness, if found in the OT. Christ tells us that He was able to live that holiness. He, through the NT writers, told us what specifically was NOT applicable to true believers, any longer.
1 Corinthians 1:19-20King James Version (KJV) 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Interesting. How do we distinguish godly wisdom from earthly wisdom? Is this verse talking about the self proclaimed wise, or it talking about the actual wise?
Jesus said “Father let them be ONE.” Paul said “Let there be NO divisions among you.” The Roman Catholic Church is one. For 2000yrs. Just as Jesus said.
Just because we know right from wrong does not mean that we choose to do what is right. The thief knows that it is wrong to steal, but it is easier to take what they want rather than work for it. Doing right/good can be very hard at times, could involve personal sacrifice, harm, or even death, so some choose to make the easier, less painful wrong choice.
@islanti The problem is that lots of people do not agree what your god claims to be good. It should be trivially easy to show the full set of objective Morals. However, you cannot. You claim you do and if people do not agree it must them using freewill to chose the bad stuff. That is the philisopical equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and shout lalalalala. You will always be right according to yourself. It is a neat trick so you will never know whether or not you are correct or just decieving yourself.
@islanti I have yet to see any reason to think this standard actually exists. From my point of view you just make unsuported claims about the objective standard. For all I can know it is just your opinion you are selling as objective. Just not buying it.
@islanti i have no idea what the hell you mean. If those objective morals are objective by definition.....we have very different understand of the word objective. You should be able to demonstrate it, not just define it.
Hm. I disagree with Dr. Craig on this one. I'm not convinced the swords were really for self-defense, and in the absence of another New Testament passage specifically addressing the matter, I think I would conclude that we are to be martyrs if necessary. That said, in the situation described, you could throw the gun away and take the guy down non-lethally. Or even just use the gun as intimidation.
Exodus 22:2 “““If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.” Exodus 22:2 NASB
If you're on an Island with someone with no BIBLE, back in those days & that one person starts choking you; your defense mechanism will kick in everytime🙏💓✌
@BestAnimeFreak that is actually incorrect, man was created to live forever thus when a person is fighting to stay alive it's that inner part of their spirit promting them to stay alive and keep existing. Christian or not every nearly every person would like to live as long as possible.
@@jamesmagwenzi6058 "Man was created to live forever" Great claim. How do you want to back up that claim? And we all know the "spirit" does not exist. You can't just attribute the survivel instinct that we do know exist, to be something from a fictional thing we have no evidence for. This is not how reality works ... "Every person likes to live as long as possible" Survival instinct ... And "every person" is not even true. There are a lot who don't ... You try to explain it with something you have no evidence for "sin" or "Satan". I explain it with things we have evidence for. Mental illness or genetic defects ... So who is probably right? The one attributing everything to non provable and stuff without evidence, oe the one who atrributes it to stuff we can prove and have evidence for? Yes, exactly ... fact beats fiction. You try attribute facts to your fictional narrative. So exactly what I said. "Borrowing from evolution", while trying to deny it.
At 3:05 he stated some people misuse the bible for slavery. I sure don't know how. It clearly states in Leviticus 25:44-46 to buy your slaves from the nations around you, they are property for life and you can bequeath them to your children as inheritance. In Exodus 21:20-21 it clearly states that you can beat a slave as long as the slave recovers from the beating in a couple of days. Then the owner is not punished because the slave is his property
Unfortunately the Bible was used incorrectly for slavery. There was a slave bible that was bond together for slave preachers to preach to slaves. many many chapters and verses were removed especially the Old Testament. What slave masters used is at The Bible Museum in Washington DC an amazing place to visit... But that Holy book and its understanding had been manipulated for the use of evil men...Be blessed brother.
We are imperfect beings due to our carnal nature. With fear of the carnal we fall to sin. If we truely lived by the spirit and had true faith in God we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. God has commanded us to love and pray for our enemies if we do this he promises that he will provide the rest.
Uhhhhh what happened to turning the other cheek? That's part of what sets us apart, no? Now to lay down our life for a friend (or family) is the greatest love, so defending someone ELSE is acceptable. But if you yourself get struck without anyone else being in danger, TURN the OTHER CHEEK. WHAT? Has anybody here never seen War Room with Priscilla Shirer? The name of Jesus is enough to rebuke all evil, is it not?
I believe that if we see someone else in trouble and we do not defend them the best we can, then that’s not love. When they say “turn the other cheek”, it means that we shouldn’t seek revenge because all revenge belongs toGod. So if your friend hurts your feelings, you shouldn’t be looking for another way to hurt his feelings back. If a friend or someone steals from you, you shouldn’t be looking to steal something back from your friend. If someone came in with a gun to kill you and you have an opportunity to defend yourself, you should defend yourself. If you can do that without killing the person, the better. But God doesn’t want us to unjustly kill someone out of hate, revenge or just because we can etc And another point about The name of Jesus being enough to rebuke evil, it doesn’t necessarily only mean physical evil. It mostly refers to spiritual evil. Rebuke lustful thoughts, murderous thoughts, hateful thoughts etc which the devil uses to tempt us.
Jesus said, think not that I've come to destroy the law.I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus followed the law and kept the Sabbath Day.
Moral judgment existed before Christianity and before Judaism. Honestly, do people think respect for others' right to life and property started in old testament times? Even pack and herd animals reward some behaviors and punish others.
@@FunkatronicGeek that’s simplistically wrong. Even scholars whom have devoted their lives to the pursuit of biblical clarification cannot come to a consensus yet laymen like yourself claim that is a consequence of sin instead of a loosely worded set of ancient writings compiled, translated and edited throughout millennia.
@@neoneherefrom5836 "instead of a loosely worded set of ancient writings compiled, translated and edited throughout millennia." Is there a consensus of scholars to prove you are right and the consequence of sin is wrong? May Jesus bless our journey✌✝🙏
"Everything in the OT was for the Jews and the NT for the World." Where did he conjure up that stuff from? When Paul wrote that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3: 16-17). He was writing to the Church (comprised of both Jews and Gentiles) via Timothy and he was referring to the OT, for the NT was not yet a thing. The scriptures cannot be broken. John 10:35. All of the NT bible writers quoted from the OT which proved that it was and still is authoritative. The Levitical system and OT were for the Jews and those who joined themselves to the LORD and came to an end (the Levitical system) when Jesus died. (Isa. 56). We need to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. (1Thess. 5.21). We should not swallow everything a person says just because he or she claims to know the Bible.
Maybe You have not read Acts chapter 15 which is the great break from legalism/Law. Most people think the gospels were for Gentiles, but even Jesus said, neither go by the way of the Gentile. He also told a woman it is not right to cast the children's food to Dogs, (Gentiles) she said yeah Lord, but the Dog licks the crumbs the children drop from the table. The problem with you is the same reason we have 1,000 churches. You don't know the difference between Jew/ & Gentile. We did not come into the picture until Apostle Paul except Cornelious Italian band Paul tells the 12 he will not bring Gentiles under the Law of Moses/ or circumcise his followers Acts 15. also see Galatians 1: & ch 2 as well. Paul was given revelation the Gentiles will come under faith through Grace & not the Law. Paul's gospel is through the finish work of the cross, this is not the Jews gospel which is faith in the name of the Messiah Jesus. You, sir, are just one more part of the problem of the gospel of Grace, which you will be a judge for. But if you put your faith in the LAW, you make the works of the Cross of no effect.
The works of the Cross is the fulfillment of the LAW. Therefore, Grace and the law have a relationship. We are saved by grace but sanctified by the law through Jesus. (Hebrew 9) And we may not forget that God declares"I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."(Quoted in Hebrew 8) So in the new earth and heavens, we all abide by the Law of God and Worship Jesus our Lord.
I really hope you respond Frank, this young man was pointing at the idea that either the bible is good for establishing morality or it is not. And when he proposed the scenario with your mom/wife whoever was about to be killed and he wanted to point at the bible to say, the bible says thou shall not murder, but Jesus himself said, "you've heard it said, tho shall not murder, but i say, 'tho shall not kill." (update: I misquoted this verse, Matt 5:21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and ‘Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire." I recalled the verse from memory and clearly missed the mark. Please disregard this point in regards to any justification that it implied.) So the question that was asked was do you kill to protect your loved ones should they be in peril, and does that fly in the face of the bibles moral code outlined. I'd like to think that the answer would be do everything you can to protect without killing....and remember, greater love has no man than this, that he would lay his life down for his friends. I whole-heartedly disagree that we have a God issued right of self defense. Self-defense is woven into our being because God is a defender and we reflect his image in our being. Doesn't give us the right. did the apostles use their "right" of self defense? that being said, my judge is God, not you, not this kid moses, not those who are reading this. If a person messes with my mom, there 9999 ways I can NOT kill that person...
Jesus Christ protected the disciples from destruction and death until it was their time to go. This enabled them to spread the Word and also die proudly doing the work of the One And Only Savior.
Philip Bateson if it’s within your power to protect an innocent being, and you allow for someone to take an innocent life, are you just as guilty? To not protect the innocent is a murderous action. The scripture you used was out of context. “Greater love hath no man than this, then to lay down his life for his brother”. John 15:3 This means you would lay down your life to protect another’s life. A mother would not allow for someone to harm her children. She would risk her own life to protect them.
Bobby Johnson Most versions have the commandment say “you shall not murder.” As far as I know, only the King James Version says “kill,” which could be a translation issue. Today, we have older, more reliable manuscripts that we use for scripture that make the KJV pretty much obsolete.
Well said. I agree with you. If Jesus knew kungfu this world be a different world. But no... no one should be dying. Especially if we pray and expect to make Earth as it is in heaven. And that scripture about the sword; it is understood by some scholars that Jesus meant it symbolically like the bread and wine = body & blood. Luke 22:35-38.
For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
I get where you're coming from and he's focusing on the moral aspect of following the Bible. I would have asked instead about why there are so many interpretations of passages of the Bible and how that can occur if the Holy Spirit is leading. I've talked to my dad about this but he can't see the dilemma. The problem is that his logical conclusion has to be that everyone else who disagrees couldn't have heard the Holy Spirit right. He can't answer how he knows that he heard correctly! My answer is that yes, the Holy Spirit will lead to truth and will help us recognize it but that if we don't have trained minds that recognize assumptions, presuppositions, and logical fallacies and we haven't done Bible study using valid historical contexts and hermeneutics we will regularly misinterpret. The Bible is a divine-human book that needs divine-human reading. We have a responsibility to read and study and the Holy Spirit will help rightly divide the word 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Turek was right on when describing that 'thou shall not murder' is actually what is meant in bibles that read 'thou shall not kill.' Kill: to terminate the life of a person. Murder: the UNJUSTIFIED termination of innocent person's life. God is saying in His word that thou shall not unjustly destroy innocent people. God is not speaking of a person who acts criminally in such a manner that he would murder your wife. No way does God expect you to stand there as your family is brutalized by a thug. We see plenty of precedent in the Old Testament of men fighting and killing to rescue their kidnapped families like in Genesis 14:11-16. And in the New Testament, we see that God expects government's to ensure justice, sometimes by execution of criminals. (Roman 13:4) So, the Bible demonstrates that there are times when killing is justified which is different from murder. I realize that there is confusion caused by the "turn the other cheek" verse. I've seen very convincing arguments that 'turning the other cheek" meant in the understanding of the time 'to take insult.' It's like how "back-handed compliment" is a saying that invokes the imagery of being slapped but doesn't literally involve slapping. In that sense, 'turning the other cheek' is a saying which communicates we should not return insult for insult - not literally instructing that anytime you're hit, turn your cheek so they can hit you on that side too. I invite you to study out this point. But I will say, that there are times when 'turning the other cheek' has called for accepting abuse for the Gospel's sake. Look at the many times the Apostles were beaten for preaching God. Note that this was only after the Apostles were captured (meaning they didn't just turn themselves in to be beaten) and they weren't Kung Fu fighting the guards once they got captured. In this context of moving the Gospel forward, "turn the other cheek" took on a physical dimension. Another amazing example of such a situation can be found here: th-cam.com/video/0luerT9Frro/w-d-xo.html
trenton9 You're correct that Not returning insult for insult is the immediate and implied context of, "turn the other cheek", the direction of the hand in hitting the cheek is God's precise demonstration of this. No one is seriously injured by the backside of a hand against the contrary angle of an opposing cheek... But because man is historically and contemporarily barbaric in nature, people impose that kind of conflict onto this text which is simply a diversion of what God is saying. Many (one could even say a majority of) hermeneutical understandings of the Bible are misinterpreted in this way which should be stunning when realized, but thanks to man's desire to cleverly , emotionally or didactically convey sermons, the true meaning of the text is staring right at everyone while not being seen. The cheek is not the place to really even do damage to someone in a conflict... It really is just the provocation of anger... Which is what God is conveying. It has nothing to do with self-defense to the threat of harm. It's good that you called this to attention because maybe it'll shake people enough to start to question their other traditional understandings that are wrong. But everyone wants bumper sticker Bible studies.
Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to to the WORK of paying attention to the CONTEXT of "turn the other cheek." Thus people often misinterpret this passage to mean something it was never intended to convey!
@Roy Pearson wow u r so mad LOL . i think u don't know jesus . a holy spirit filled person would never say like that . your attitude proves you dont have the holy spirit in u . u r not borned again . plz don't go to hell . u have to meet jesus personaly . just ask him to come at your heart and b your god . say this words from the bottom of your heart : "jesus i believe u r god who come in human body 2 die 4 my sins . i give u all my sins , just erase them all . and i give u my heart , come and live in it . i recieve this gift of salvation . jesus b my god and my savior , i want 2 meet u personaly and b your son\daughter" 😁 😉
Why are Old Testament morals and New Testament morals different! Why isn't God morally consistent with everything including if men are allowed to marry multiple women and have concubines? It makes no sense to me and seems hypocritical that God would not have a commandment prohibiting men from ever having multiple wives and/or concubines!
If you hurt or kill an intruder, on your property - you will likely be charged and convicted. We’ve had many cases. Once, a convenience store owner captured the burgler, tied his wrists and locked him in a storage room till the police arrived. He was charged and prosecuted. :(
Jesus said if you dont have a sword, to sell your garments and buy one...It is also said A strong man ARMED will defend his home...Open your mind and read (or re-read) the Bible as a child...meaning without ANY pre-concieved ideas.
I totally disagree with Frank here, I'm surprised of this answer o_o . I think Jesus was pretty clear in Matthew 5. In fact self defense, to me, is actually instinct of the flesh, absolutely not divinely written in us and is not spiritual at all. And Jesus is very clear that we should overcome it with love. If we were to be perfect christians, we would not resist because 1. We are not to harm anyone, at best just flee. And 2: we have faith in what happens when we physically "die". However, the question remains difficult when it's about protecting someone other than yourself. I think morally you overcome your own instinct of survival and intervene but you do your absolute best to NOT kill the person, even at the cost of your own life. But obviously, that' s theory of course.
Self defense can mean anything, I doesn't mean to kill somebody I train in Brazilian jiujitsu strictly for self defense and to tk harm but if I had a gun, that can be used as self defense as well only it will harm your attacker.
My question would be, why then did the Apostles not fight back when it came to their own deaths? Scripture does indicate that Stephen fought back in self defense when being stoned. Just a thought to add to this.
Come on, Frank started off so well by trying to distinguish the issues here. But he just reverts to the pre-set prepared answers for a question not asked. The question was really, "if the Bible is the objective source of morality, and its instructions are moral instead of merely cultural, why is there no consensus on what is right morality or right doctrine today?" Lesson here is to expand your apologetical framework to better answer question
3:52 Where does it say to use self defense?..(ironic that he used the thief in the night scenario). Exodus 22 gives some clues about God’s attitude toward self-defense: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2-3). Two basic principles taught in this text are the right to own private property and the right to defend that property. The full exercise of the right to self-defense, however, depended on the situation. No one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him harm. If someone was set upon by a thief in the middle of the night and, in the confusion of the moment the would-be thief was killed, the Law did not charge the homeowner with murder. But, if the thief was caught in the house during the day, when the homeowner was unlikely to be awoken from sleep, then the Law forbade the killing of the thief. Essentially, the Law said that homeowners shouldn’t be quick to kill or attack thieves in their home. Both situations could be considered self-defense, but deadly force was expected to be a last resort, used only in the event of a panicked “surprise attack” scenario where the homeowner is likely to be confused and disoriented. In the case of a nighttime attack, the Law granted the homeowner the benefit of the doubt that, apart from the darkness and confusion of the attack, he would not intentionally use lethal force against a thief. Even in the case of self-defense against a thief, a godly person was expected to try to restrain the assailant rather than immediately resort to killing him.
show me one written document with out a multiple of interpretations on what the message is....that is why, in the USA there are nine people read judges to try to figure out what the Constitution really means...
Philip Buckley And, they still get it wrong on many occasions. Why? They interpret it the way they want to with a predisposed bias as to what they want it to say. They aren’t as smart as an 18th or 19th century citizen with half the education. It is similar to what Mose’s question is; if the Founders understood it in simple English, the citizens of the time understood it and it is as plain to see as your face, then why are there so many different ways to interpret it?
You are so right.... The only correct and accurate understanding of anything anybody writes is the one intended by the writer not the misunderstandings of its reader.
@@IronCavalier If they misinterpret it, it has nothing to do with them being not smart. It simply means that a text that should have been clear to understand, isn't. If you can interpret it in many different ways, then nobody except the one who wrote it, is able to say what the correct interpretation is ... So even you saying "they are wrong" is hypocritical, as you can not know if your definition is right ... And this is actualy a great example. The constitution is written by man ... The Bible is supposedly written with the influence of God ... yet you can interpret so much stuff into it, without knowing who is right ... God is as bad in writing a clear text, as humans are ... This gets apparent, when there are Christians in this comment section who disagree with Tureks sword example ... So who is right? To say deifnitive, is hypocritical, as we can not know ... to claim ones knows, is exactly the problem that arises ...
Where does Frank get that thought that "if it's not repeated in the new testament, it's not binding"? Is there a verse in the new testament for that? Can anyone help me with that? I'm not talking about verses that say that the law is done away with, but a verse or group of verses that lead to the idea of the entire old testament being irrelevant to the christian world, unless it was repeated.
My answer on the is it wrong to kill in defense would be from Corinthians: 1 Corinthians 13:7 - Love protects. Killing is sometimes necessary to protect.
im 2 years late but the man asking the question is very respectful and very clear-cut on his question. a very good question and a very good questioner. a true example of an efficient debate
Have you watched the rest of this series? They're all scripted, which is why they all seem slightly deferential, and also why Turek just happens to have slides that match the questions.
I'm not sure, I think he was more misunderstanding the difference between his thought that the Bible is what established morale truth, versus the reality that morale truth is objectively established in the very person and character of God Himself.
When you make up things you can lie your way out of anything! You have to take the words out of context to make it fit your own narrative! And there are over 30,000 different excuses for the same religion! Why? Only fairytales are discussed! if any god was real we would all know the same god with the same explanation of that god and we would not be discussing if a god was real or not! Religionsxare just another version of dungeon and dragons game!
Snow Rider that's a very simplistic understanding of God to think if there was one we would all know the same God while it sounds reasonable. For example there is only one president and he speaks himself but clearly the interpretation of what he says matters and perceived differently by different people. Its quite simplistic to say "there should be no confusion". The problem is that there is ofcourse only one God but there billions of people with their own free will and different understanding. I would rather agree if you think that there is only one way God would explain himself but not necessary that everyone would know him as he desires. And since God knows that, he teaches us about heaven and hell as consequence so that we take it responsibly and move past simplistic excuses to not knowing God. Hope that gives you some food for thought.
@@snowrider4495 Be careful you're not letting your ignorance or imagination keep you from God. There is only one God. And in the beginning, everyone alive knew that. And then again after the flood, everyone alive knew there was one God. But there is an enemy out there (Satan) and his fallen angels and they have no love for us... they create lies and deceive many of us every moment, so that we might curse God and never be saved. I would encourage you to put out of your mind the nonsense you are trusting, humble yourself, and read God's word. He is real, and you are in grave danger.
@@christian_gamer_guy6447 lol your the one pretending in invisible magic man in the sky! There is only 3 verses about satan in the book where did you learn the extra stuff that's not written in the buybull! I hope you realize god made hell, god sends people to hell, god deceives and lies, god tortures people in hell not satan! God is the evil one in the story! Your god murdered hundreds of millions of people and satan only 13 because god was proving his narcissism to satan the good one that has no hell nor tortures or lies in the buybull! Please read your book all the way thru and pay attention to the evil one by how many people the kill and command to have killed! A good guy would not be a homicidal maniac killing everyone! Religious characters are great roll models for life long prisoners and death row inmates! If a person did what god did hed be in prison and then killed! And you say gods the good one? That's sick to think!!!!
@@jeffkim6005 When i asked this question i got two answers 1) Maybe holyspirit guides us from wrong teachers or wrong preachers of gospel 2)like what you said
It seems as though the guy asking the questions isn’t really interested in hearing the answers. It appears that it’s just an intellectual exercise for him to ask questions in an effort to make Frank stumble in order to demonstrate some form of intellectual jousting but when answers are provided, he doesn’t really mull them over because it sounds like his mind is already made up.
The video cuts before we get a chance to see his reaction so hold your horses buddy lol. You're partly right though, Frank stumbled, mumbled and eventually dodged that question; but only by contradicting himself going from "the bible gives objective morality" to "we don't need the bible we know right and wrong"
the guy with the questions is probing Frank to get answers. he's clearly well read and know's Frank will fumble; which indeed he does. Frank didn't need help getting tongue tied; he did it all by himself. Frank will never ever ever change his opinion no matter what the question or answer - it's called being stupid and having a life full of indoctrination.
Ecclesiastes 3:3 “A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;” a time to kill because Galatians 6:7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Matt 5:39 turn the other cheek. Psalm 82:3 defend the weak. Luke 6:29 turn the other cheek. Deut 32:35 Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord. Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill. Jesus says, "you've heard it said not to commit adultery, but I tell you if you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery". So if this loophole of lust was closed to avoid committing adultery, what makes any of us think there is a difference between murder and killing. Do your best not to kill or murder while protecting the weak and do not seek Vengeance for it is the Lord's to avenge. Use all the teachings of scripture and honor God in all that you do! Be encouraged.
The old testament is still binding, BUT because Jesus died on the cross, our belief in Jesus then fulfills us from following the Old Testament law, therefore allowing us to follow Jesus, instead of the law.
We have the choice to become good or evil. We can either draw closer to God by doing what is just. Or turn towards evil and become the tool of the Adversary. God doesn't mess with free will.
Hogwash...the bible from beginning to end is binding! Sure things change, but the OT still remains binding. Just as prophecy is prophecy and always prophetic (until it comes or passes), it will always be true. So is the OT and the NT -- a binding fact for all Christians / Jews. Question: in your view why is the OT no longer binding?
If you think the OT is binding, you deny the work of Christ at the cross presence of the Holy Spirit made possible because of Christ. You are talking about prophecy and Turek is not talking about prophecy. Your point is not relevant to anything Turek said.
Greg Harding Matthew 22:38-40 which means, unless it is specifically spoken of in the New Testament as well as Old Testament, then we are to follow the New Testament covenant, we are no longer in the age of law (OT) we are in the age of grace (NT)
WildKnightWolf and arqeph, The NC is simply an enhancement of the OC... both being of the LAw. THe difference is that the law is no longer just wrintings on a tablet of stone but written in our hearts and minds so that we *CAN* obey it. As such, it cannot be "done away with" as ill-often preached. Rather Jesus "binds" it to us! arqeph, you are still a slave -- WAKE UP! Also from your words you seems to think Jewish slavery statutes were the same as pagans? Do you not know what you are reading? Or understand how Jewish slavery worked? Slavery was used to help payoff debts when the debtor weas unable to fulfill the agreements. SO they entered into salvery for up to 7 years at which time if the debt still remained the slave had the choice to be set free or remain. Salves were also treated as family and given all provisions to live. That's the Jewish custom. Some slaves even requested to be life-long slaves of the woner and were given bands on their ears to wear showing their loyalty and ownership of their master. THIS IS THE BIBLE, learn it.
Simple answer,in self defence it is not necessary to 'kill' - that should be the last last action when all else has been exhausted and it's either you or them and in that case God shall be judge ,now we know why wars are hell on earth that is killing strangers unknown to us for what ever idiologies.
I hate this stupid argument that Jesus somehow condemns the evils in the bible. Jesus didn't soften the Old Tesament. He specifically enforces it! So anybody claiming that Jesus fixed the atrocities of the old testament, read the bible of which you claim is so pure and just. “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17) Atrocities like... "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) - Leviticus 25:44" "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) - Leviticus 20:13" "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) - Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21" "When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again." Exodus 21: 7-8 So Jesus not only condones the evil of the old testament, he came to enforce them. Evils like rape, murder, slavery, homophobia, genocide, sexism, infantacide, incest and blood sacrifice. And this is where Christians get their morals? Bullsh!t. You get your morality from society.
Chesrae Martin See, tm you're going to run into a problem if you claim the Bible is immoral. To say that the Bible is immoral you have to make the claim that God is immoral. In order to say God is immoral God would have to exist and there would have to be a standard that is over him. However, there is no standard above God so it becomes impossible to say that he does anything immoral. If God does not exist then any argument about morality becomes subjective and you lose any ability to justify any actions.
Idiot atheist why aren't you killing witches anymore? Your bible commands it and untold women were tortured and burned for it. Why aren't Christians burning women alive anymore? Because Secular law overcame biblical law. Otherwise you'd be stoning unruly children and women raped in cities. As for "idiots" talking snakes and donkeys?
diana...Just when I think I have heard the apex of atheist's stupidity, I read what you "wrote"."" Where do you find this stupidity? As an atheist, why aren't you out killing millions of people because they do think like you want them to think? atheists are well know for murdering millions of children and women. One atheist was directly responsible for the deaths of 70,000,000 children, women and men. In 1958, he bragged about burying alive 46,000 scholars. ISIS is not that bad. WOW! Look at all the people that are being killed in North Korea. A well know atheist nation. "As for "idiots" talking snakes and donkeys?" More of your atheist stupidity. You prove that atheism is the religion of hate.
Idiot atheist -I did note you didn't respond to my points but merely went on a "Atheist dictators were brutal" So were the Japanese,the Tai Pings,The Inquisition the RCC child rape,ISIS,Taliban,the burning of the Cathars ad infinitum. None of whom were atheists
I think it's clear that God has indeed written a moral law onto the hearts of men, but it is a rough and basic version of that law. As I tend to think of it, the Bible gives us a way of refining our understanding into something more profound and complete.
TheHigherVoltage Did you just say that? Did you REALLY just say that? What other reason would Jesus have to tell his apostles to buy a sword? So they look nice?
Matthew 5:39, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Matthew 16:25, Luke 17:33, Matthew 26:52. All who live by the sword die by the sword. Do not resist an evil person. Those who seek to save their life will lose it, but those who lose it will find it. The sword he was recommending them to bring could have easily been for whacking down bushes or defending against wild animals. Never once did Jesus or any of the disciples violently resist their enemies.
Ian Bartleson Wrong, the turn the other cheek situation is for personal insults or bullies etc.. If you believe that Christianity is a pacifist faith then you'd have to explain why God commanded the Israelites to execute murderers, thieves and also explain why God would break one of His Commandments when He killed the Canaanites and Egyptians. There is a difference between kill and murder.. The KJV says _Thou shall not kill_ but it's actually _Thou shall not murder,_ the Jewish 10 Commandments says the same as well. Exodus 22:2 "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
Moses has some good points there... - Why would God need to repeat something, if it is still binding? When God says something it is so, until He would change it.
When you were a child, how many times did your mom tell you to clean your room? Do you think her repeating herself twenty times somehow meant she did not expect it to be cleaned after the first time she said it? Repetion isn't for God. It is for us.
So if God is not the author of confusion, why is there so much confusion in every church that " follows the Bible" have different doctrine? Different doctrine of different churches belief in the same"god" = confusion.
So you're telling me if I'm a lecturer introducing a concept that completely makes sense say the Law of relativity but the students get confused, the material itself is the cause of their confusion? It seems it is us who misinterpret the teachings of the bible with our flawed thinking.
@Haman Othman Christianity starts with the NT. The OT is a short history of the world, how people kept breaking God's commandments and how God kept warning them they are on the wrong path, the path to perdition. The OT shows us why Jesus had to come and suffer for us so that we can be saved.
I think Frank didn't really address the question in the title. I think the questioner is asking about the exceptions he mentioned in 2:05. If that was the question, I would say that the Bible isn't so specific about many doctrinal things: Calvinism/Arminianism, infant baptism, old earth/young earth, speaking in tongues, etc. I would say, all of them has a (not explicit) unique true answer, but they are not really explicit in the Bible. And I would say that those who hold different views can still both be saved, as long as it is not the primary doctrine of Christianity (justification by faith).
So in order to be non radical as per the norms of societal consensus we will ignore " turn the other cheek" , " walk an extra mile " " no more of this " ( when the ear is cut off ) and cling on to " buy a sword " whose use was admonished shortly thereafter ..hmmmm. I do still feel uneasy about that verse though " if you have no sword " ...
A hypocrite is someone not willing to change. A person in sin but wanting to change and taking steps to seek God even more and repent of that sin is not a hypocrite
What about turn the other cheek, and judge not lest you be judged. If you shoot to kill someone, you are judging them, and perhaps killing someone who may have repented later in life if given the chance. Wounding someone to stop an attack, would be hard to resist though.
Put yourself in that situation, and instead of your mother, let's say it's your child. Knowing the perps intention is to kill them and you have the power to stop them! what would you do? Why do even you need think about it?
It takes to read the entire holy bible starting from the beginning of Genesis right to the end of Revelations to be able to understand . read it all and ask many others with faith what you find hard to understand.
Encouragement Right now you may be going through the hardest time you've ever faced. Your life may be unsettled and things may look hopeless. There seems to be no way out for you and every avenue you turn to fills you with more stress, confusion and weariness. But Jesus says "I know what you're going through. Come and rest in My peace." In the midst of your troubles, when you call on Him, the Holy Spirit will fill you with the peace of Christ. People will point to you and say, "How can he do it? How does he go on? He should have quit long ago. Yet he hasn't given up. And through it all, he hasn't compromised anything, he believes in his God and His word. What amazing peace! It's beyond understanding." (Philippians 4:7)
Doesnt this contradict what Turek says when he argues with atheists saying they have no authority to decide whats right and whats wrong? Can someone explain
Prof. Hyme Rabinowitz Completely false. Jesus didn't say to do away with the ten commandments. He reaffirms them in the NT. He clearly said anything reaffirmed in the NT that was in the OT is still binding.
Like slavery? There are multiple verses in the NT that forcefully instruct slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2, 1Pet 2:18, Titus 2:9-10).
Slavery was part of common culture everywhere in the world. The Bible was not written in the 21st century so you cannot look through such myopic lenses. Even still, the Bible was revolutionary in declaring slavery unjust. It's not surprising that Christian abolitionists, quakers, and evangelicals were the only ones who took action against slavery in the United States which eventually led to the Civil Rights movement supported once again by Christians.
Moses: the answer to this question is in wikipedia: ”Justified killing: intruder in the home[edit] As described in the Torah, the ancient understanding of the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."[35] A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril. - Matthew Henry, Henry, M. "1706. Commentary on the whole Bible, volume I (Genesis to Deuteronomy). Christian Classics Ethereal Library."
Matthew (Matthew 26, 26:52): "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thysword into his place: for all they thattake the sword shall perish with thesword."
But what prompted Peter to draw that sword and cut off the ear of the Temple security guard? Was he not doing so in defense of Jesus??? Yes, but Jesus stopped Peter from inflicting further bloodshed because he knew that " His hour of sacrifice had come", and that fighting or trying to prevent it was Not the will of the Father. Peter didn't understand this when he acted.
If killing in self defence is allowed then Jesus would have let the guy who cut on Jesus prosecuters ear finish him, but instead he said to him to lay down his weapon. Its a difficult scenario where you dont really know what you would do until it happens, but personally i think killing even in self defence is wrong
So.. which one is it? Do we have the morality from the Bible or do we know it from our hearts? Frank usually says that atheists must admit there's a God, because where else do we get our moral standards from?
The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells His remaining disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus knew that now was the time when His followers would be threatened, and He upheld their right to self-defense. Just a short time later, Jesus is arrested, and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act (verses 49-51). Why? In his zeal to defend the Lord, Peter was standing in the way of God’s will. Jesus had told His disciples multiple times that He must be arrested, put on trial, and die (e.g., Matthew 17:22-23). In other words, Peter acted unwisely in that situation. We must have wisdom regarding when to fight and when not to. Exodus 22:2-3…Two basic principles taught in this text are the right to own private property and the right to defend that property. The full exercise of the right to self-defense, however, depended on the situation. No one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him harm. If someone was set upon by a thief in the middle of the night and, in the confusion of the moment the would-be thief was killed, the Law did not charge the homeowner with murder. Paul engaged in self-defense on occasion, although non-violently. When he was about to be flogged by the Romans in Jerusalem, Paul quietly informed the centurion with the scourge that he, Paul, was a Roman citizen. The authorities were immediately alarmed and began to treat Paul differently, knowing they had violated Roman law by even putting him in chains. Paul had used a similar defense in Philippi-after he was flogged-in order to secure an official apology from those who had violated his rights (Acts 16:37-39). Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) has to do with our response to personal slights and offenses. Some situations may call for self-defense, but not retaliation in kind. The context of Jesus’ command is His teaching against the idea of “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” (verse 38). Our self-defense is not a vengeful reaction to an offense. In fact, many offenses can simply be absorbed in forbearance and love. The Bible never forbids self-defense, and believers are allowed to defend themselves and their families. But the fact that we are permitted to defend ourselves does not necessarily mean we must do so in every situation. Knowing God’s heart through reading His Word and relying on “the wisdom that comes from heaven” (James 3:17) will help us know how to best respond in situations that might call for self-defense.
The truth is an infallible book is useless without an infallible interpreter....otherwise it’s all down to what each person thinks the truth is. And not someone guided by God
Ideo of killing for self defence is still not in my head, the first century christian were killed very often, I don't see anywhere in bible that they defended themselves by killing their oppressers.
Jesus use violence when he kicked out the money-changers, so if Jesus is our model, this tells us that under certain circumstances that violence is justified. He also said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." It's tough issue, because you're right that the first century Christians largely seemed to be pacifists. But let me ask you this question: If you came across a situation where a woman was being raped, do you think God would want you to pray about it or would he want you to fight off her attacker? To me, the answer is obvious.
If God where to command you to defend yourself would it be a sin then? The suggestion I would have is follow the Holy Spirit on what it suggests you do if you are Christian. It very well might convict you to defend your house and home. It might also convict you to not. Early persecuted Christians show us a lesson on faith and putting Trust in the Holy Spirit and keeping the faith in Jesus when it comes to their martyrdom. Also the example given in the video is one of a Thief breaking into the house at night with intent to rob and murder. Not a Government deciding to execute you because you are a christian. The two scenarios are different. One is you being subject to both your Faith to God vs a State, while not following god is allowed to exist by Him. Where as the other the Thief has intruded into your house and you are the person of Authority in the scenario.
Turek dodged the real question, that is, if moral values are imprinted on our hearts or on the Bible then why is it that one thinks that killing a thief is a murder and others think it's right because that would be just self defense? Is it a minor issue? And even if it was a minor issue, why can't it be taken the same way by all of us since it's supposed to be part of an objective system of moral values?
@2centavos it's just an example, not necessarily the same they presented in the video. The basic question that Turek avoided is that this objective moral law that is supposedly existent is perceived differently by different groups of people including different groups of Christians. Let's say death penalty, for convicted murderers, for example. Or even lethal preemptive atacks in a war, like in Iroshima. These are not minor details and still there are different perceptions of what is moral to do. If they were objectively imprinted in our hearts we should all have the same perception, but that's not the case.
@2centavos When we talk about what could be imprinted or not in our hearts we still stick to the video. That's what Moses meant with his question that if there's an objective moral system in the Bible then why are there different ways that different sects of Christians take it. He showed just one example. But, actually, there are others. Was Yroshyma bomb killing or murdering? Euthanasia, is one more. Is it killing or murdering? So, Turek says it's not just in the Bible, it's also in our hearts. But the question remains. If it's objectively in our hearts why can't we agree about what is wrong and right. That's what Moses was pointing out.
"If a theif is found in the act of breaking in and he gets struck and dies, there is no bloodguilt for him"- Exodus 22-2
arqeph You're still allowed self defense, But in the right Situation and Circumstances. To some extent Homicide is Acceptable
Brady Patrick I wouldn't like that my Father was killed, But that's what happens, What they did was justified, what if your father was Mugging someone and he got shot, is that not justified?
Jesus Jimenez Mr Turek..lol
he just couldnt answer...He says Old Testament not needed and also at 2:53 entire bible not needed cause morality is in our hearts....Then he fumbles the Get a Sword vs Rebuking of using the sword, murder vs killing..If we had to revise the bible just a few pages would remain...
james bates
What?
@@ThatGoodBarbequ yes. If you kill my father before he kills you after he broke into your home, I would be on your side and pray for my father. We are all brothers and sisters of one true father. His laws are above ours. I would cry, but I would be ok with it.
We're just gonna act like that guy didn't fall in the background in 0:27 ?
Josiah Javier 😂
Thanks for the heads-up, I had to go back and watch it
Josiah Javier That gave me a good laugh!
nope lol
Josiah Javier ROFLOL!!
I like to put it this way; "God performed the action of instilling us with His morality, THEN, He wrote a book about it." Simple and to the point.
@Play Win No, its not. Clearly. Gotta love that an African American is the thumbnail
Except he didn’t write anything. Men did.
Simple indeed! Lol
@@mr.equity1120 from god
@@kamscott4862 You know this how?
Moses! You sound like Moses when he first came in contact with God.
He looks like the Burning Bush lol
Clifton Wilkinson ... have to be careful when you name a kid. They take on the name and it’s meaning. 😀
Big Cricket yea don’t do that
I was about to say Moses supposes song but seeing there are warnings here I'll take back my words.
@@jeziscricket4448 Dude he would've been so holy if he were the burning bush lol
LOL AT THE GUY MISSING THE STAGE ON HIS JUMP
Web User i thought only i saw it
Brother Frank, i don't know if you will read this, but i'm God very thankful for your life and the knowledge that is given to you 😭 .. I had a call yesterday with a brother and he said we are at times hypocrites Halil and i said yes, but it didn't really came through, only a certain level. But now i watched this video and heard your answer and now it came through and in my heart. How many times we can feel offended and take it personal by someone saying this about us, which makes us going into defence? And how often we result in standing against others instead of next to others? I cryed while i typed this, and it really opened my eyes. I know our walk with the most WONDERFUL ever Jesus Christ isn't about feeling holier or better than anyone. But this really touched my heart because at times i did feel offended by things like this. We have to point others to Christ and the cross without losing the cross out of sight ourselves. In the end we all need Him as much as everyone, also for our moments of being hypocrites like the rest around us. We have our moments, that we are hypocrites as christians. But we are so blessed that in Christ it doesn't determine our identity in Christ and how God looks at us in Christ!
May God bless you and your family and your work abundatly, again i'm thankful to God for your life! ❤️😭🙏🏽
“If we were perfect we wouldn’t need a savior” I love that becuase it’s so true. So many atheists superimpose this concept that Christians are perfect but that just not true. We are merely trying to improve ourselves to be the best we can be. To stop sinning, to stop gossiping etc.
So god is also not perfect? Since he created such a mess of a world, i mean the bible stories themself are a tale of gods monumental constant failures.
VolvoMetal you perception isn’t wrong and it’s funny. God successfully lead help Moses lead the people out of Egypt and so much more you not very intelligent are you?
@@Orelio_Ceferino_de_Pamplona I wouldn't really call having tons of people killed to show off and leading "his people" wandering around in a desert for 40 years success. But anyhow, this is stories in a book, that we can't verify even happened... Seems more like made up myths for people to feel important
There is no such thing as SIN only moral and imoral actions. The percieved whims of your imaginary friend are irrelevant.
I think it's because many assume Christianity is a works based religion. You need to do many good things and no bad things, which is impossible for humans in an imperfect world. This is the whole reason why we need a saviour and why Jesus died on the cross and came back to life 3 days later. Jesus payed for our wages of sin.
Morality is one of those fun topics. It is something that is so obvious that people rarely look into why it is the way it is. Thus, deeper thoughts on the subject are rare in the public sphere.
Over all I like this answer he gave.
As a Christian and an apologist, I feel he sidestepped the question because it’s a difficult one to answer. That’s frustrating.
I like Dr. T, but he mishandled the Luke text. Moses was correct.
How would you have answered the question?
I agree with you on this issue, the disciple suffered many trials and tribulations, in gloried in their tribulations, and Jesus said if they persecute you in one city flee to another. Now it's obvious you don't just stand around and let yourself be killed if someone is after your life, but attempting to defuse the situation, or even fleeing before deciding to just kill him before he kills me would run through my mind taking every provision for peace, just thinking I have right to self-defense in pulling the trigger may be a false entitlement you think you have from the Bible in a heart check would really be necessary, but this is why we are in relationship with Jesus Christ I'm pretty sure he will lead us through that horrible a situation.
@@ChirstInTheDistance
Years ago, I severely injured a young man who had insulted me and further provoked me by shoving me.
I wasn't out of control when I kicked him, but I was angry.
I knew immediately that I'd hurt him, but didn't know until the following week how badly I'd injured him, and felt terrible about it, because I never intended the result of that kick.
If one can do that kind of damage to one who insults one, I can only imagine what one can do when defending the life of a loved one.
And don't think God doesn't know or understanding the capabilities of a man or woman faced with that scenario.
God is the Judge in these situations. Its our duty to defend and protect the weak from aggressors.
@@mikehenson819 The god of biblical naratives is not morally fit to judge anyone 🤮🤮🤮
Correct!! Our conscience gives us natural revelation. The Bible gives us supernatural revelation! May God bless anyone who reads this comment!
There is no such thing as " supernatural " before magic can be used as an explanation for anything it has to be shown to be a possibility first 😜
No supernatural claims made in the bible have been proven to be true.
May God bless you as well!
The Old Testament was Jesus and the apostles Bible. They teached it and lived it. So for every true follower of Jesus should be binding.
Amen brother
AMEN. When Paul said " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. " he was referring to the scripture they had at the time, which is the old testament
II Timothy 3:16
If u want to say Christians have to keep Moses Law of OT you are wrong. The Apostles followed and Jesus kept (and fullfilled) the law before he was resurrected because 1. they were Israelis and 2. At this time they were under the law.
But as you maybe know in the NT they are under Grace by the new Covenant and pretty clearly say that we are no longer under that law. Read Galatans
@Larry Cavalli The other apostles affirmed Paul's teaching and apostleship. You're free of course to reinterpret Christianity in a new way that is different from any other Christian on earth--as even the earliest post-apostolic church leaders accepted Paul's teaching as authoritative--but it would be probably best to realize you are doing your own thing, completely disconnected from the 2000-year-old Christian tradition and not call it Christianity.
@Larry Cavalli But if Paul's story is correct, he was not self-appointed. Rather, he was appointed by Christ on the Damascus Rd. And as mentioned, he is accepted by the other apostles and is mentioned in their letters.
4:40
When we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.. That's why it is written on our hearts
I didn't eat from it though
"When we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.. That's why it is written on our hearts"
If that is true, god didn't need to hand down any commandments.
@@cnault3244 the commandments are only clarification. Meaning even those who never hear the gospel, morals are still in our hearts
@@kait4824 " the commandments are only clarification. Meaning even those who never hear the gospel, morals are still in our hearts"
Why would clarification be needed? Was god too inept to write the morals clearly on our hearts ?
Do you obey the Bible's commandments? Do you agree with the Bible's commandments?
@@cnault3244 Dr. Turek explains this, near the end of the video. He explains how Noah, and the early prophets did not have the commandments. But they still had the basic human morale that we have
Two swords were not for self-defense but to fulfill the Word "He was numbered among transgressors" Isaiah 53:12
Yep, I was thinking that also.
Aleksandr Osipyan thank you
@Lauren Ferris the prophecy of "he was numbered among the transgressors" was established by not only his claim that "before Moses was, I am": he was also tried and convicted by the Sanhedrin, beaten and put to death between actual criminals.
The fact that he said to the disciples to go and buy swords, has nothing to do with why Jesus was considered a criminal, and everything to do with the fact that they would become hated, hunted, and mistreated by evil people for the gospels sake: which they were!
He said it doesn't say though shall not kill? Yeah, i dont think so!!!!!!
@@joshuageographic6201 the translation from the original Hebrew into English is not pure. According to Hebrew scholars, the the English word "kill" is not a correct translation.
The Hebrew meaning is closer to commit "Murder".
If you have read and know the Law given Moses concerning "Sanctuary cities", where God told Moses to establish for those who killed someone accidentally to flee, until guilt was establishedby Jewish trial by God's Law the true intention of the purpetrator as to guilt or innocence of the crime.
Also when God commanded Joshua and Israel to go into the promised land and kill everything and everyone, was GOD telling his people to ignoring his own commandment to not kill, or was he telling them to go and murder ( kill out of anger and personal satisfaction)?
Or; was they simply following the orders of the Most High GOD who had judged the nation's in question?
We are made in the image and *likeness* of God. So that's the reason that even without the bible or even without believing in God we are moral beings, just not morally perfect beings.
Romans 3:10
mrjo2thec And where is your evidence? You are making an assertive claim without truth. The burden of proof lies on everyone, yet you refuse to bring any.
You're wrong. By a long way.
STREEEEEET says: *No. That's just what the Bible says. Why are you saying it as if it is literal truth?*
Because it is true.
*The Bible is not a factual book, as an adult you should know this by now.*
Yes, the bible is a factual book.
There is nothing in the bible that is not factual, of course you do have to view things from the correct and proper perspective in order to clearly see that.
@ Made of metal
Morality isn't learned through experience and I can prove it.
God back to telling your first lie as a child I guarantee you knew you were lying when you told that lie.
13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. John 15:9-17
What has that have to do with self defence?
@@mikehenson819 to give up your life is to defend
YOU ARE LITERALLY giving your life for someone else’s
Who ever lives by the sword dies by the sword. One must have a sword to fight the sword. Self defence, is an eye for an eye. The LORD Jesus asks us to go above and love those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you so that we let our light shine to those living in darkness that they might know we are children of the most high. What reward is there for man who loves the ones who love him and hate the ones who hate him.
An eye for an eye is seeking vengeance for the wrong committed against you, generally by way of revenge. Self defense, protecting ourselves or others against one who is trying to hurt or kill them or us is not an eye for an eye. To put our lives on the line to protect another is loving your neighbor as yourself. This is an just act and the Bible speaks very highly on justice.
Jason0331 my comment is directed at the person who came in the house. Notice the word of GOD saith who ever lives by the sword ( the instigator) will die by the sword. Thanks
Sheriff Bang , you missed the verses were Jesus commanded his followers to sell their coats to buy a sword, and to bring anyone who opposed him and slay them in front of him. Where’s love?
@@Nkosi766 where does it say that AT ALL in the scripture to slay them in front of Jesus???? Stop twisting scripture thats not what it says. It says
"Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one" LUQAS (LUKE) 22:36 את CEPHER
Luke 19:27
New International Version
27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
1:00
And with that, my confidence in Dr. Turek's ability to understand and teach the Word just dropped a few notches.
Who'd you think he is ? God?
Outstanding as always. God bless you and do continue using you even more.
Salutations from Brazil.
Because interpretation. Even though we know morality, we don't follow it and it's still up to interpretation sometimes.
I take issue at Mr Turek's comments ~ :54, as he said that: "Much of the Bible is not binding on us, anymore." Much of what we know about holiness, if found in the OT. Christ tells us that He was able to live that holiness. He, through the NT writers, told us what specifically was NOT applicable to true believers, any longer.
Totally disagree. Jesus didn't discount the OT
This begs the question:
Where is new testament authority for Sunday keeping, and graven image use?
where in the bible does it say anything not repeated in the new testament from the old testament is no longer binding?
1 Corinthians 1:19-20King James Version (KJV)
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
Interesting. How do we distinguish godly wisdom from earthly wisdom? Is this verse talking about the self proclaimed wise, or it talking about the actual wise?
@@donthemessenger8080 it is talking about the self proclaimed wise if this world. Rather than the wisdom that comes from the Holy Spirit.
God is constant so you're mistakes dont equal His....He makes no mistakes
When did Jesus say the old testment isn't binding today?
Jesus didn't, Paul did.
Jesus said
“Father let them be ONE.”
Paul said
“Let there be NO divisions among you.”
The Roman Catholic Church is one.
For 2000yrs. Just as Jesus said.
If moral law was written on our hearts, everyone should have the same moral compass. But they don't......
Just because we know right from wrong does not mean that we choose to do what is right. The thief knows that it is wrong to steal, but it is easier to take what they want rather than work for it. Doing right/good can be very hard at times, could involve personal sacrifice, harm, or even death, so some choose to make the easier, less painful wrong choice.
@islanti The problem is that lots of people do not agree what your god claims to be good. It should be trivially easy to show the full set of objective Morals. However, you cannot.
You claim you do and if people do not agree it must them using freewill to chose the bad stuff. That is the philisopical equivalent to putting your fingers in your ears and shout lalalalala.
You will always be right according to yourself. It is a neat trick so you will never know whether or not you are correct or just decieving yourself.
@islanti I have yet to see any reason to think this standard actually exists.
From my point of view you just make unsuported claims about the objective standard. For all I can know it is just your opinion you are selling as objective. Just not buying it.
@islanti From my point of view still just you making a claim that it is objective. Show to me that it is objective.
@islanti i have no idea what the hell you mean.
If those objective morals are objective by definition.....we have very different understand of the word objective. You should be able to demonstrate it, not just define it.
Well answered. Jesus knew that Peter always had a sword so self defence would not be a sin.
Hm. I disagree with Dr. Craig on this one. I'm not convinced the swords were really for self-defense, and in the absence of another New Testament passage specifically addressing the matter, I think I would conclude that we are to be martyrs if necessary. That said, in the situation described, you could throw the gun away and take the guy down non-lethally. Or even just use the gun as intimidation.
Exodus 22:2 “““If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.”
Exodus 22:2 NASB
@warrcc c It's hard to think morally in any case. Sin dwells is us and is always working against us. That's why we need the divine life and the blood.
English Standard Version Ecclesiastes 3:3
a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
If you're on an Island with someone with no BIBLE, back in those days & that one person starts choking you; your defense mechanism will kick in everytime🙏💓✌
Turek likes to say that atheists borrow from God when they use moral arguments.
So I can just flip it and say, you just borrowed from evolution.
@BestAnimeFreak that is actually incorrect, man was created to live forever thus when a person is fighting to stay alive it's that inner part of their spirit promting them to stay alive and keep existing. Christian or not every nearly every person would like to live as long as possible.
@@jamesmagwenzi6058 "Man was created to live forever"
Great claim.
How do you want to back up that claim?
And we all know the "spirit" does not exist.
You can't just attribute the survivel instinct that we do know exist, to be something from a fictional thing we have no evidence for.
This is not how reality works ...
"Every person likes to live as long as possible"
Survival instinct ...
And "every person" is not even true.
There are a lot who don't ...
You try to explain it with something you have no evidence for "sin" or "Satan".
I explain it with things we have evidence for.
Mental illness or genetic defects ...
So who is probably right?
The one attributing everything to non provable and stuff without evidence, oe the one who atrributes it to stuff we can prove and have evidence for?
Yes, exactly ... fact beats fiction.
You try attribute facts to your fictional narrative.
So exactly what I said.
"Borrowing from evolution", while trying to deny it.
At 3:05 he stated some people misuse the bible for slavery. I sure don't know how. It clearly states in Leviticus 25:44-46 to buy your slaves from the nations around you, they are property for life and you can bequeath them to your children as inheritance.
In Exodus 21:20-21 it clearly states that you can beat a slave as long as the slave recovers from the beating in a couple of days. Then the owner is not punished because the slave is his property
Unfortunately the Bible was used incorrectly for slavery. There was a slave bible that was bond together for slave preachers to preach to slaves. many many chapters and verses were removed especially the Old Testament. What slave masters used is at The Bible Museum in Washington DC an amazing place to visit... But that Holy book and its understanding had been manipulated for the use of evil men...Be blessed brother.
Love his stuff but he takes Luke 22 out of context. Jesus tells his disciples to get swords to fulfill a prophesy
That got me confused too..
@Larry Cavalli I think that's the word
@Larry Cavalli Context.
We are imperfect beings due to our carnal nature. With fear of the carnal we fall to sin. If we truely lived by the spirit and had true faith in God we wouldn't need to defend ourselves. God has commanded us to love and pray for our enemies if we do this he promises that he will provide the rest.
Uhhhhh what happened to turning the other cheek? That's part of what sets us apart, no?
Now to lay down our life for a friend (or family) is the greatest love, so defending someone ELSE is acceptable.
But if you yourself get struck without anyone else being in danger, TURN the OTHER CHEEK.
WHAT?
Has anybody here never seen War Room with Priscilla Shirer? The name of Jesus is enough to rebuke all evil, is it not?
I believe that if we see someone else in trouble and we do not defend them the best we can, then that’s not love.
When they say “turn the other cheek”, it means that we shouldn’t seek revenge because all revenge belongs toGod.
So if your friend hurts your feelings, you shouldn’t be looking for another way to hurt his feelings back. If a friend or someone steals from you, you shouldn’t be looking to steal something back from your friend.
If someone came in with a gun to kill you and you have an opportunity to defend yourself, you should defend yourself. If you can do that without killing the person, the better.
But God doesn’t want us to unjustly kill someone out of hate, revenge or just because we can etc
And another point about The name of Jesus being enough to rebuke evil, it doesn’t necessarily only mean physical evil. It mostly refers to spiritual evil. Rebuke lustful thoughts, murderous thoughts, hateful thoughts etc which the devil uses to tempt us.
Jesus said, think not that I've come to destroy the law.I have not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. Jesus followed the law and kept the Sabbath Day.
My atheist friend just sent me this clip... I’m Christian, and sometimes send him Turek’s videos
I love the relationship you two have 😊 I'm jelly.
Moral judgment existed before Christianity and before Judaism. Honestly, do people think respect for others' right to life and property started in old testament times? Even pack and herd animals reward some behaviors and punish others.
I think his question was meant to be ”if there is one holy spirit then why there is so many denominations?”
The answer is simple: sin
Holy spirit doesn't turn people to robots. The more we yield the more He finds expression in our lives.
@@FunkatronicGeek that’s simplistically wrong.
Even scholars whom have devoted their lives to the pursuit of biblical clarification cannot come to a consensus yet laymen like yourself claim that is a consequence of sin instead of a loosely worded set of ancient writings compiled, translated and edited throughout millennia.
@@neoneherefrom5836 "instead of a loosely worded set of ancient writings compiled, translated and edited throughout millennia."
Is there a consensus of scholars to prove you are right and the consequence of sin is wrong? May Jesus bless our journey✌✝🙏
@@jesus.christ.god.saviorjes8805 lack of consensus is the problem lol
So many disputations: How to Baptize, do we honor the Sabbath, etc, etc.
That’s why Christ sacrificed himself, so we could be saved through him and not through baptism or rituals
In reference at 1:48. That, (if I'm not mistaken), is called, "dispensation". Which could be say that is a type of consensus.
Mark 9:43-44
2 Corinthians 10:5
John 15:10
Matthew 7:21
1 Peter 1:14-17
Hebrews 10:26-27
Galatians 5:19-21
Matthew 7:13-14
1 John 5:3
Revelation 3:5
Revelation 3:16
Luke 13:3
1 John 2:1-6
1 John 3:7-8
John 7:12
"Everything in the OT was for the Jews and the NT for the World." Where did he conjure up that stuff from? When Paul wrote that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3: 16-17). He was writing to the Church (comprised of both Jews and Gentiles) via Timothy and he was referring to the OT, for the NT was not yet a thing. The scriptures cannot be broken. John 10:35. All of the NT bible writers quoted from the OT which proved that it was and still is authoritative. The Levitical system and OT were for the Jews and those who joined themselves to the LORD and came to an end (the Levitical system) when Jesus died. (Isa. 56). We need to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. (1Thess. 5.21). We should not swallow everything a person says just because he or she claims to know the Bible.
Maybe You have not read Acts chapter 15 which is the great break from legalism/Law. Most people think the gospels were for Gentiles, but even Jesus said, neither go by the way of the Gentile. He also told a woman it is not right to cast the children's food to Dogs, (Gentiles) she said yeah Lord, but the Dog licks the crumbs the children drop from the table. The problem with you is the same reason we have 1,000 churches. You don't know the difference between Jew/ & Gentile. We did not come into the picture until Apostle Paul except Cornelious Italian band Paul tells the 12 he will not bring Gentiles under the Law of Moses/ or circumcise his followers Acts 15. also see Galatians 1: & ch 2 as well. Paul was given revelation the Gentiles will come under faith through Grace & not the Law. Paul's gospel is through the finish work of the cross, this is not the Jews gospel which is faith in the name of the Messiah Jesus. You, sir, are just one more part of the problem of the gospel of Grace, which you will be a judge for. But if you put your faith in the LAW, you make the works of the Cross of no effect.
Brilliant response.
The works of the Cross is the fulfillment of the LAW. Therefore, Grace and the law have a relationship. We are saved by grace but sanctified by the law through Jesus. (Hebrew 9) And we may not forget that God declares"I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."(Quoted in Hebrew 8) So in the new earth and heavens, we all abide by the Law of God and Worship Jesus our Lord.
In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.
I really hope you respond Frank, this young man was pointing at the idea that either the bible is good for establishing morality or it is not.
And when he proposed the scenario with your mom/wife whoever was about to be killed and he wanted to point at the bible to say, the bible says thou shall not murder, but Jesus himself said, "you've heard it said, tho shall not murder, but i say, 'tho shall not kill."
(update: I misquoted this verse, Matt 5:21 “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ and ‘Whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.’ 22 But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, ‘Thou fool,’ shall be in danger of hell fire."
I recalled the verse from memory and clearly missed the mark. Please disregard this point in regards to any justification that it implied.)
So the question that was asked was do you kill to protect your loved ones should they be in peril, and does that fly in the face of the bibles moral code outlined.
I'd like to think that the answer would be do everything you can to protect without killing....and remember, greater love has no man than this, that he would lay his life down for his friends.
I whole-heartedly disagree that we have a God issued right of self defense. Self-defense is woven into our being because God is a defender and we reflect his image in our being. Doesn't give us the right.
did the apostles use their "right" of self defense?
that being said, my judge is God, not you, not this kid moses, not those who are reading this. If a person messes with my mom, there 9999 ways I can NOT kill that person...
Jesus Christ protected the disciples from destruction and death until it was their time to go. This enabled them to spread the Word and also die proudly doing the work of the One And Only Savior.
Philip Bateson if it’s within your power to protect an innocent being, and you allow for someone to take an innocent life, are you just as guilty? To not protect the innocent is a murderous action.
The scripture you used was out of context. “Greater love hath no man than this, then to lay down his life for his brother”. John 15:3
This means you would lay down your life to protect another’s life. A mother would not allow for someone to harm her children. She would risk her own life to protect them.
@@annieaviles4760 so why did jesus say thou shall not kill?
Bobby Johnson Most versions have the commandment say “you shall not murder.” As far as I know, only the King James Version says “kill,” which could be a translation issue. Today, we have older, more reliable manuscripts that we use for scripture that make the KJV pretty much obsolete.
Well said. I agree with you. If Jesus knew kungfu this world be a different world. But no... no one should be dying. Especially if we pray and expect to make Earth as it is in heaven.
And that scripture about the sword; it is understood by some scholars that Jesus meant it symbolically like the bread and wine = body & blood. Luke 22:35-38.
For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors.’ For the things concerning Me have an end.”
I get where you're coming from and he's focusing on the moral aspect of following the Bible.
I would have asked instead about why there are so many interpretations of passages of the Bible and how that can occur if the Holy Spirit is leading.
I've talked to my dad about this but he can't see the dilemma. The problem is that his logical conclusion has to be that everyone else who disagrees couldn't have heard the Holy Spirit right. He can't answer how he knows that he heard correctly!
My answer is that yes, the Holy Spirit will lead to truth and will help us recognize it but that if we don't have trained minds that recognize assumptions, presuppositions, and logical fallacies and we haven't done Bible study using valid historical contexts and hermeneutics we will regularly misinterpret.
The Bible is a divine-human book that needs divine-human reading. We have a responsibility to read and study and the Holy Spirit will help rightly divide the word
2 Timothy 2:15 KJV - Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Turek was right on when describing that 'thou shall not murder' is actually what is meant in bibles that read 'thou shall not kill.'
Kill: to terminate the life of a person.
Murder: the UNJUSTIFIED termination of innocent person's life.
God is saying in His word that thou shall not unjustly destroy innocent people. God is not speaking of a person who acts criminally in such a manner that he would murder your wife. No way does God expect you to stand there as your family is brutalized by a thug.
We see plenty of precedent in the Old Testament of men fighting and killing to rescue their kidnapped families like in Genesis 14:11-16. And in the New Testament, we see that God expects government's to ensure justice, sometimes by execution of criminals. (Roman 13:4)
So, the Bible demonstrates that there are times when killing is justified which is different from murder.
I realize that there is confusion caused by the "turn the other cheek" verse. I've seen very convincing arguments that 'turning the other cheek" meant in the understanding of the time 'to take insult.' It's like how "back-handed compliment" is a saying that invokes the imagery of being slapped but doesn't literally involve slapping. In that sense, 'turning the other cheek' is a saying which communicates we should not return insult for insult - not literally instructing that anytime you're hit, turn your cheek so they can hit you on that side too. I invite you to study out this point.
But I will say, that there are times when 'turning the other cheek' has called for accepting abuse for the Gospel's sake. Look at the many times the Apostles were beaten for preaching God. Note that this was only after the Apostles were captured (meaning they didn't just turn themselves in to be beaten) and they weren't Kung Fu fighting the guards once they got captured. In this context of moving the Gospel forward, "turn the other cheek" took on a physical dimension. Another amazing example of such a situation can be found here: th-cam.com/video/0luerT9Frro/w-d-xo.html
trenton9
You're correct that Not returning insult for insult is the immediate and implied context of, "turn the other cheek", the direction of the hand in hitting the cheek is God's precise demonstration of this. No one is seriously injured by the backside of a hand against the contrary angle of an opposing cheek... But because man is historically and contemporarily barbaric in nature, people impose that kind of conflict onto this text which is simply a diversion of what God is saying. Many (one could even say a majority of) hermeneutical understandings of the Bible are misinterpreted in this way which should be stunning when realized, but thanks to man's desire to cleverly , emotionally or didactically convey sermons, the true meaning of the text is staring right at everyone while not being seen. The cheek is not the place to really even do damage to someone in a conflict... It really is just the provocation of anger... Which is what God is conveying. It has nothing to do with self-defense to the threat of harm.
It's good that you called this to attention because maybe it'll shake people enough to start to question their other traditional understandings that are wrong. But everyone wants bumper sticker Bible studies.
Unfortunately, not everyone bothers to to the WORK of paying attention to the CONTEXT of "turn the other cheek." Thus people often misinterpret this passage to mean something it was never intended to convey!
The reason there are many views about christains because most of them do not have the Holy Spirit! Act 11:14-18! This why!
yeah sure,... so u have holy spirit in u , so i have him too... but i'm sure we easily will find many differences in our believes 😁 😝
@Roy Pearson wow u r so mad LOL . i think u don't know jesus . a holy spirit filled person
would never say like that . your attitude proves you dont have the holy spirit in u . u r not borned again . plz don't go to hell . u have to meet jesus personaly . just ask him to come at your heart and b your god . say this words from the bottom of your heart :
"jesus i believe u r god who come in human body 2 die 4 my sins . i give u all my sins , just erase them all . and i give u my heart , come and live in it . i recieve this gift of salvation . jesus b my god and my savior , i want 2 meet u personaly and b your son\daughter"
😁 😉
@@marriage4life what about baptism. The bible says that is when you receive the spirit
Why are Old Testament morals and New Testament morals different! Why isn't God morally consistent with everything including if men are allowed to marry multiple women and have concubines? It makes no sense to me and seems hypocritical that God would not have a commandment prohibiting men from ever having multiple wives and/or concubines!
So interesting. I agree - the right to lethal self defence is intuitively known.... but here in Canada we go to jail for that. 😕
What? Why?
If you hurt or kill an intruder, on your property - you will likely be charged and convicted. We’ve had many cases. Once, a convenience store owner captured the burgler, tied his wrists and locked him in a storage room till the police arrived. He was charged and prosecuted. :(
Canada self defense policies is **GARBAGE** What a terrible joke on it's people.
not just in canada mate, a lot of countries. they called it excessive self defense. u can go to jail for that in south korea too
Jesus said if you dont have a sword, to sell your garments and buy one...It is also said A strong man ARMED will defend his home...Open your mind and read (or re-read) the Bible as a child...meaning without ANY pre-concieved ideas.
I totally disagree with Frank here, I'm surprised of this answer o_o . I think Jesus was pretty clear in Matthew 5. In fact self defense, to me, is actually instinct of the flesh, absolutely not divinely written in us and is not spiritual at all. And Jesus is very clear that we should overcome it with love. If we were to be perfect christians, we would not resist because 1. We are not to harm anyone, at best just flee. And 2: we have faith in what happens when we physically "die". However, the question remains difficult when it's about protecting someone other than yourself. I think morally you overcome your own instinct of survival and intervene but you do your absolute best to NOT kill the person, even at the cost of your own life. But obviously, that' s theory of course.
Self defense can mean anything, I doesn't mean to kill somebody I train in Brazilian jiujitsu strictly for self defense and to tk harm but if I had a gun, that can be used as self defense as well only it will harm your attacker.
Agree.
My question would be, why then did the Apostles not fight back when it came to their own deaths? Scripture does indicate that Stephen fought back in self defense when being stoned. Just a thought to add to this.
Come on, Frank started off so well by trying to distinguish the issues here. But he just reverts to the pre-set prepared answers for a question not asked. The question was really, "if the Bible is the objective source of morality, and its instructions are moral instead of merely cultural, why is there no consensus on what is right morality or right doctrine today?" Lesson here is to expand your apologetical framework to better answer question
3:52 Where does it say to use self defense?..(ironic that he used the thief in the night scenario).
Exodus 22 gives some clues about God’s attitude toward self-defense: “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed” (Exodus 22:2-3). Two basic principles taught in this text are the right to own private property and the right to defend that property. The full exercise of the right to self-defense, however, depended on the situation. No one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him harm. If someone was set upon by a thief in the middle of the night and, in the confusion of the moment the would-be thief was killed, the Law did not charge the homeowner with murder. But, if the thief was caught in the house during the day, when the homeowner was unlikely to be awoken from sleep, then the Law forbade the killing of the thief. Essentially, the Law said that homeowners shouldn’t be quick to kill or attack thieves in their home. Both situations could be considered self-defense, but deadly force was expected to be a last resort, used only in the event of a panicked “surprise attack” scenario where the homeowner is likely to be confused and disoriented. In the case of a nighttime attack, the Law granted the homeowner the benefit of the doubt that, apart from the darkness and confusion of the attack, he would not intentionally use lethal force against a thief. Even in the case of self-defense against a thief, a godly person was expected to try to restrain the assailant rather than immediately resort to killing him.
show me one written document with out a multiple of interpretations on what the message is....that is why, in the USA there are nine people read judges to try to figure out what the Constitution really means...
Philip Buckley And, they still get it wrong on many occasions. Why? They interpret it the way they want to with a predisposed bias as to what they want it to say. They aren’t as smart as an 18th or 19th century citizen with half the education.
It is similar to what Mose’s question is; if the Founders understood it in simple English, the citizens of the time understood it and it is as plain to see as your face, then why are there so many different ways to interpret it?
You are so right.... The only correct and accurate understanding of anything anybody writes is the one intended by the writer not the misunderstandings of its reader.
@@IronCavalier If they misinterpret it, it has nothing to do with them being not smart.
It simply means that a text that should have been clear to understand, isn't.
If you can interpret it in many different ways, then nobody except the one who wrote it, is able to say what the correct interpretation is ...
So even you saying "they are wrong" is hypocritical, as you can not know if your definition is right ...
And this is actualy a great example.
The constitution is written by man ...
The Bible is supposedly written with the influence of God ... yet you can interpret so much stuff into it, without knowing who is right ...
God is as bad in writing a clear text, as humans are ...
This gets apparent, when there are Christians in this comment section who disagree with Tureks sword example ...
So who is right?
To say deifnitive, is hypocritical, as we can not know ... to claim ones knows, is exactly the problem that arises ...
Where does Frank get that thought that "if it's not repeated in the new testament, it's not binding"? Is there a verse in the new testament for that? Can anyone help me with that? I'm not talking about verses that say that the law is done away with, but a verse or group of verses that lead to the idea of the entire old testament being irrelevant to the christian world, unless it was repeated.
Sorry frank, i love your work, but at around 4:50 I just started cringing. Too much assumption and no facts at around this point
Agreed
islanti how so? Jesus said if you are hit turn other cheek, If you are robbed give them more
My answer on the is it wrong to kill in defense would be from Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 13:7 - Love protects.
Killing is sometimes necessary to protect.
First like and comment. What What lol
Lol
im 2 years late but the man asking the question is very respectful and very clear-cut on his question. a very good question and a very good questioner. a true example of an efficient debate
Have you watched the rest of this series? They're all scripted, which is why they all seem slightly deferential, and also why Turek just happens to have slides that match the questions.
Wow, Moses was just TRYING to stump him, wasn't he?!? Didn't work, though, lol
I'm not sure, I think he was more misunderstanding the difference between his thought that the Bible is what established morale truth, versus the reality that morale truth is objectively established in the very person and character of God Himself.
When you make up things you can lie your way out of anything! You have to take the words out of context to make it fit your own narrative! And there are over 30,000 different excuses for the same religion! Why? Only fairytales are discussed! if any god was real we would all know the same god with the same explanation of that god and we would not be discussing if a god was real or not! Religionsxare just another version of dungeon and dragons game!
Snow Rider that's a very simplistic understanding of God to think if there was one we would all know the same God while it sounds reasonable. For example there is only one president and he speaks himself but clearly the interpretation of what he says matters and perceived differently by different people. Its quite simplistic to say "there should be no confusion".
The problem is that there is ofcourse only one God but there billions of people with their own free will and different understanding. I would rather agree if you think that there is only one way God would explain himself but not necessary that everyone would know him as he desires. And since God knows that, he teaches us about heaven and hell as consequence so that we take it responsibly and move past simplistic excuses to not knowing God.
Hope that gives you some food for thought.
@@snowrider4495 Be careful you're not letting your ignorance or imagination keep you from God. There is only one God. And in the beginning, everyone alive knew that. And then again after the flood, everyone alive knew there was one God. But there is an enemy out there (Satan) and his fallen angels and they have no love for us... they create lies and deceive many of us every moment, so that we might curse God and never be saved.
I would encourage you to put out of your mind the nonsense you are trusting, humble yourself, and read God's word. He is real, and you are in grave danger.
@@christian_gamer_guy6447 lol your the one pretending in invisible magic man in the sky! There is only 3 verses about satan in the book where did you learn the extra stuff that's not written in the buybull! I hope you realize god made hell, god sends people to hell, god deceives and lies, god tortures people in hell not satan! God is the evil one in the story! Your god murdered hundreds of millions of people and satan only 13 because god was proving his narcissism to satan the good one that has no hell nor tortures or lies in the buybull! Please read your book all the way thru and pay attention to the evil one by how many people the kill and command to have killed! A good guy would not be a homicidal maniac killing everyone! Religious characters are great roll models for life long prisoners and death row inmates! If a person did what god did hed be in prison and then killed! And you say gods the good one? That's sick to think!!!!
If moral law written on hearts of everyone..Then what is the purpose of holy spirit??
Rahul Rgs Holy Spirit helps us to live according to what we have in our heart.
@@jeffkim6005 When i asked this question i got two answers
1) Maybe holyspirit guides us from wrong teachers or wrong preachers of gospel
2)like what you said
Rahul Rgs everyone is born with a conscience and knows right from wrong. The Holy Spirit gives man the ability to do right.
It seems as though the guy asking the questions isn’t really interested in hearing the answers. It appears that it’s just an intellectual exercise for him to ask questions in an effort to make Frank stumble in order to demonstrate some form of intellectual jousting but when answers are provided, he doesn’t really mull them over because it sounds like his mind is already made up.
The video cuts before we get a chance to see his reaction so hold your horses buddy lol. You're partly right though, Frank stumbled, mumbled and eventually dodged that question; but only by contradicting himself going from "the bible gives objective morality" to "we don't need the bible we know right and wrong"
the guy with the questions is probing Frank to get answers. he's clearly well read and know's Frank will fumble; which indeed he does. Frank didn't need help getting tongue tied; he did it all by himself. Frank will never ever ever change his opinion no matter what the question or answer - it's called being stupid and having a life full of indoctrination.
Ecclesiastes 3:3
“A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;”
a time to kill because
Galatians 6:7
“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
🙌🙏💪🏼
Matt 5:39 turn the other cheek.
Psalm 82:3 defend the weak.
Luke 6:29 turn the other cheek.
Deut 32:35 Vengeance is mine, I will repay says the Lord.
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Jesus says, "you've heard it said not to commit adultery, but I tell you if you look at a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery". So if this loophole of lust was closed to avoid committing adultery, what makes any of us think there is a difference between murder and killing.
Do your best not to kill or murder while protecting the weak and do not seek Vengeance for it is the Lord's to avenge. Use all the teachings of scripture and honor God in all that you do! Be encouraged.
Wrong, none of it is binding on us. It’s a myth.
The commandment says Thall shall not kill. It doesn't explain intent or causality.
Modern translations say "You shall not murder" based on the Hebrew word in the text. There's a separate word for killing not related to murder.
No. The entire Bible is STILL binding. We have no authority to decide what can and can not be acknowledged.
IAmOjiLiwa but God and the bible told us to live by the new testament.
The old testament is still binding, BUT because Jesus died on the cross, our belief in Jesus then fulfills us from following the Old Testament law, therefore allowing us to follow Jesus, instead of the law.
yes we do.
We have no authority but Jesus does.
@Melissa Fancy face we still need to follow the law, love thy neighbor and love God
We have the choice to become good or evil. We can either draw closer to God by doing what is just. Or turn towards evil and become the tool of the Adversary. God doesn't mess with free will.
Hogwash...the bible from beginning to end is binding! Sure things change, but the OT still remains binding. Just as prophecy is prophecy and always prophetic (until it comes or passes), it will always be true. So is the OT and the NT -- a binding fact for all Christians / Jews.
Question: in your view why is the OT no longer binding?
If you think the OT is binding, you deny the work of Christ at the cross presence of the Holy Spirit made possible because of Christ. You are talking about prophecy and Turek is not talking about prophecy. Your point is not relevant to anything Turek said.
Well Said YoshiExcel
Greg Harding Matthew 22:38-40 which means, unless it is specifically spoken of in the New Testament as well as Old Testament, then we are to follow the New Testament covenant, we are no longer in the age of law (OT) we are in the age of grace (NT)
WildKnightWolf and arqeph, The NC is simply an enhancement of the OC... both being of the LAw. THe difference is that the law is no longer just wrintings on a tablet of stone but written in our hearts and minds so that we *CAN* obey it. As such, it cannot be "done away with" as ill-often preached. Rather Jesus "binds" it to us!
arqeph, you are still a slave -- WAKE UP! Also from your words you seems to think Jewish slavery statutes were the same as pagans? Do you not know what you are reading? Or understand how Jewish slavery worked? Slavery was used to help payoff debts when the debtor weas unable to fulfill the agreements. SO they entered into salvery for up to 7 years at which time if the debt still remained the slave had the choice to be set free or remain. Salves were also treated as family and given all provisions to live. That's the Jewish custom. Some slaves even requested to be life-long slaves of the woner and were given bands on their ears to wear showing their loyalty and ownership of their master. THIS IS THE BIBLE, learn it.
+Greg Harding You are confused or intentionally trying to deceive.
Simple answer,in self defence it is not necessary to 'kill' - that should be the last last action when all else has been exhausted and it's either you or them and in that case God shall be judge ,now we know why wars are hell on earth that is killing strangers unknown to us for what ever idiologies.
I hate this stupid argument that Jesus somehow condemns the evils in the bible.
Jesus didn't soften the Old Tesament. He specifically enforces it! So anybody claiming that Jesus fixed the atrocities of the old testament, read the bible of which you claim is so pure and just.
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17)
Atrocities like...
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. (NIV) - Leviticus 25:44"
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (NRSV) - Leviticus 20:13"
"If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ … and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones … (NKJV) - Deuteronomy 22:13-14,20-21"
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again."
Exodus 21: 7-8
So Jesus not only condones the evil of the old testament, he came to enforce them. Evils like rape, murder, slavery, homophobia, genocide, sexism, infantacide, incest and blood sacrifice.
And this is where Christians get their morals? Bullsh!t. You get your morality from society.
Chesrae Martin See, tm you're going to run into a problem if you claim the Bible is immoral. To say that the Bible is immoral you have to make the claim that God is immoral.
In order to say God is immoral God would have to exist and there would have to be a standard that is over him.
However, there is no standard above God so it becomes impossible to say that he does anything immoral.
If God does not exist then any argument about morality becomes subjective and you lose any ability to justify any actions.
chesrae...I expect stupidity from atheist and you did not disappoint me.
You prove that atheism is the religion of hate.
Idiot atheist why aren't you killing witches anymore? Your bible commands it and untold women were tortured and burned for it. Why aren't Christians burning women alive anymore? Because Secular law overcame biblical law. Otherwise you'd be stoning unruly children and women raped in cities. As for "idiots" talking snakes and donkeys?
diana...Just when I think I have heard the apex of atheist's stupidity, I read what you "wrote"."" Where do you find this stupidity?
As an atheist, why aren't you out killing millions of people because they do think like you want them to think?
atheists are well know for murdering millions of children and women.
One atheist was directly responsible for the deaths of 70,000,000 children, women and men. In 1958, he bragged about burying alive 46,000 scholars. ISIS is not that bad. WOW!
Look at all the people that are being killed in North Korea. A well know atheist nation.
"As for "idiots" talking snakes and donkeys?" More of your atheist stupidity.
You prove that atheism is the religion of hate.
Idiot atheist -I did note you didn't respond to my points but merely went on a "Atheist dictators were brutal" So were the Japanese,the Tai Pings,The Inquisition the RCC child rape,ISIS,Taliban,the burning of the Cathars ad infinitum. None of whom were atheists
If morality is written on my heart why do I need the Bible?
I guess it is to know what will happen when you are immoral.
I think it's clear that God has indeed written a moral law onto the hearts of men, but it is a rough and basic version of that law. As I tend to think of it, the Bible gives us a way of refining our understanding into something more profound and complete.
Jesus directly preached against self-defense several times.
Frank is being dishonest.
JESUS NEVER SPOKE FOR OR AGAINST SELF DEEFENSE.
TheHigherVoltage Did you just say that? Did you REALLY just say that? What other reason would Jesus have to tell his apostles to buy a sword? So they look nice?
Several times huh? Give the scriptures, plz
Matthew 5:39, Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, Matthew 16:25, Luke 17:33, Matthew 26:52.
All who live by the sword die by the sword. Do not resist an evil person. Those who seek to save their life will lose it, but those who lose it will find it. The sword he was recommending them to bring could have easily been for whacking down bushes or defending against wild animals. Never once did Jesus or any of the disciples violently resist their enemies.
Ian Bartleson
Wrong, the turn the other cheek situation is for personal insults or bullies etc.. If you believe that Christianity is a pacifist faith then you'd have to explain why God commanded the Israelites to execute murderers, thieves and also explain why God would break one of His Commandments when He killed the Canaanites and Egyptians.
There is a difference between kill and murder.. The KJV says _Thou shall not kill_ but it's actually _Thou shall not murder,_ the Jewish 10 Commandments says the same as well.
Exodus 22:2
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."
Moses has some good points there... - Why would God need to repeat something, if it is still binding? When God says something it is so, until He would change it.
When you were a child, how many times did your mom tell you to clean your room?
Do you think her repeating herself twenty times somehow meant she did not expect it to be cleaned after the first time she said it?
Repetion isn't for God. It is for us.
So if God is not the author of confusion, why is there so much confusion in every church that " follows the Bible" have different doctrine? Different doctrine of different churches belief in the same"god" = confusion.
So you're telling me if I'm a lecturer introducing a concept that completely makes sense say the Law of relativity but the students get confused, the material itself is the cause of their confusion? It seems it is us who misinterpret the teachings of the bible with our flawed thinking.
Can someone tell me the name of the song that plays at the end?
I cannot understand by new testament is for present peoole and old testament is for previous people...?
@Haman Othman Christianity starts with the NT. The OT is a short history of the world, how people kept breaking God's commandments and how God kept warning them they are on the wrong path, the path to perdition. The OT shows us why Jesus had to come and suffer for us so that we can be saved.
I think Frank didn't really address the question in the title. I think the questioner is asking about the exceptions he mentioned in 2:05. If that was the question, I would say that the Bible isn't so specific about many doctrinal things: Calvinism/Arminianism, infant baptism, old earth/young earth, speaking in tongues, etc. I would say, all of them has a (not explicit) unique true answer, but they are not really explicit in the Bible. And I would say that those who hold different views can still both be saved, as long as it is not the primary doctrine of Christianity (justification by faith).
So in order to be non radical as per the norms of societal consensus we will ignore " turn the other cheek" , " walk an extra mile " " no more of this " ( when the ear is cut off ) and cling on to " buy a sword " whose use was admonished shortly thereafter ..hmmmm. I do still feel uneasy about that verse though " if you have no sword " ...
A hypocrite is someone not willing to change. A person in sin but wanting to change and taking steps to seek God even more and repent of that sin is not a hypocrite
What about turn the other cheek, and judge not lest you be judged. If you shoot to kill someone, you are judging them, and perhaps killing someone who may have repented later in life if given the chance. Wounding someone to stop an attack, would be hard to resist though.
Put yourself in that situation, and instead of your mother, let's say it's your child.
Knowing the perps intention is to kill them and you have the power to stop them! what would you do?
Why do even you need think about it?
If Christians are supposed follow Jesus, and Jesus followed the Old Testament, then why is he saying the Old Testament is irrelevant, I’m Muslim btw
It takes to read the entire holy bible starting from the beginning of Genesis right to the end of Revelations to be able to understand . read it all and ask many others with faith what you find hard to understand.
Encouragement
Right now you may be going through the hardest time you've ever faced. Your life may be unsettled and things may look hopeless. There seems to be no way out for you and every avenue you turn to fills you with more stress, confusion and weariness. But Jesus says "I know what you're going through. Come and rest in My peace." In the midst of your troubles, when you call on Him, the Holy Spirit will fill you with the peace of Christ. People will point to you and say, "How can he do it? How does he go on? He should have quit long ago. Yet he hasn't given up. And through it all, he hasn't compromised anything, he
believes in his God and His word. What amazing peace! It's beyond understanding." (Philippians 4:7)
Doesnt this contradict what Turek says when he argues with atheists saying they have no authority to decide whats right and whats wrong? Can someone explain
There you heard it folks! Frank Turek says the ten commandments are no longer binding on us today
Prof. Hyme Rabinowitz Completely false. Jesus didn't say to do away with the ten commandments. He reaffirms them in the NT. He clearly said anything reaffirmed in the NT that was in the OT is still binding.
Like slavery? There are multiple verses in the NT that forcefully instruct slaves to obey their masters (Eph 6:5-8, Col 3:22-24, 1Tim 6:1-2, 1Pet 2:18, Titus 2:9-10).
Slavery was part of common culture everywhere in the world. The Bible was not written in the 21st century so you cannot look through such myopic lenses. Even still, the Bible was revolutionary in declaring slavery unjust. It's not surprising that Christian abolitionists, quakers, and evangelicals were the only ones who took action against slavery in the United States which eventually led to the Civil Rights movement supported once again by Christians.
Moses: the answer to this question is in wikipedia: ”Justified killing: intruder in the home[edit]
As described in the Torah, the ancient understanding of the prohibition of murder made an exception for legitimate self-defense. A home defender who struck and killed a thief caught in the act of breaking in at night was not guilty of bloodshed. "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed."[35]
A man's house is his castle, and God's law, as well as man's, sets a guard upon it; he that assaults it does so at his peril.
- Matthew Henry, Henry, M. "1706. Commentary on the whole Bible, volume I (Genesis to Deuteronomy). Christian Classics Ethereal Library."
Matthew (Matthew 26, 26:52): "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thysword into his place: for all they thattake the sword shall perish with thesword."
But what prompted Peter to draw that sword and cut off the ear of the Temple security guard? Was he not doing so in defense of Jesus???
Yes, but Jesus stopped Peter from inflicting further bloodshed because he knew that " His hour of sacrifice had come", and that fighting or trying to prevent it was Not the will of the Father.
Peter didn't understand this when he acted.
If killing in self defence is allowed then Jesus would have let the guy who cut on Jesus prosecuters ear finish him, but instead he said to him to lay down his weapon. Its a difficult scenario where you dont really know what you would do until it happens, but personally i think killing even in self defence is wrong
So.. which one is it? Do we have the morality from the Bible or do we know it from our hearts? Frank usually says that atheists must admit there's a God, because where else do we get our moral standards from?
The proper use of self-defense has to do with wisdom, understanding, and tact. In Luke 22:36, Jesus tells His remaining disciples, “If you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” Jesus knew that now was the time when His followers would be threatened, and He upheld their right to self-defense. Just a short time later, Jesus is arrested, and Peter takes a sword and cuts off someone’s ear. Jesus rebukes Peter for that act (verses 49-51). Why? In his zeal to defend the Lord, Peter was standing in the way of God’s will. Jesus had told His disciples multiple times that He must be arrested, put on trial, and die (e.g., Matthew 17:22-23). In other words, Peter acted unwisely in that situation. We must have wisdom regarding when to fight and when not to.
Exodus 22:2-3…Two basic principles taught in this text are the right to own private property and the right to defend that property. The full exercise of the right to self-defense, however, depended on the situation. No one should be too quick to use deadly force against another, even someone who means to do him harm. If someone was set upon by a thief in the middle of the night and, in the confusion of the moment the would-be thief was killed, the Law did not charge the homeowner with murder.
Paul engaged in self-defense on occasion, although non-violently. When he was about to be flogged by the Romans in Jerusalem, Paul quietly informed the centurion with the scourge that he, Paul, was a Roman citizen. The authorities were immediately alarmed and began to treat Paul differently, knowing they had violated Roman law by even putting him in chains. Paul had used a similar defense in Philippi-after he was flogged-in order to secure an official apology from those who had violated his rights (Acts 16:37-39).
Jesus’ command to “turn the other cheek” (Matthew 5:39) has to do with our response to personal slights and offenses. Some situations may call for self-defense, but not retaliation in kind. The context of Jesus’ command is His teaching against the idea of “eye for eye, and tooth for tooth” (verse 38). Our self-defense is not a vengeful reaction to an offense. In fact, many offenses can simply be absorbed in forbearance and love.
The Bible never forbids self-defense, and believers are allowed to defend themselves and their families. But the fact that we are permitted to defend ourselves does not necessarily mean we must do so in every situation. Knowing God’s heart through reading His Word and relying on “the wisdom that comes from heaven” (James 3:17) will help us know how to best respond in situations that might call for self-defense.
He could've used the example of Jesus chasing people out of the temple.
The truth is an infallible book is useless without an infallible interpreter....otherwise it’s all down to what each person thinks the truth is. And not someone guided by God
Jay Ellis lol
Ideo of killing for self defence is still not in my head, the first century christian were killed very often, I don't see anywhere in bible that they defended themselves by killing their oppressers.
Jesus use violence when he kicked out the money-changers, so if Jesus is our model, this tells us that under certain circumstances that violence is justified. He also said, "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
It's tough issue, because you're right that the first century Christians largely seemed to be pacifists. But let me ask you this question: If you came across a situation where a woman was being raped, do you think God would want you to pray about it or would he want you to fight off her attacker?
To me, the answer is obvious.
If God where to command you to defend yourself would it be a sin then? The suggestion I would have is follow the Holy Spirit on what it suggests you do if you are Christian. It very well might convict you to defend your house and home. It might also convict you to not. Early persecuted Christians show us a lesson on faith and putting Trust in the Holy Spirit and keeping the faith in Jesus when it comes to their martyrdom.
Also the example given in the video is one of a Thief breaking into the house at night with intent to rob and murder. Not a Government deciding to execute you because you are a christian. The two scenarios are different.
One is you being subject to both your Faith to God vs a State, while not following god is allowed to exist by Him.
Where as the other the Thief has intruded into your house and you are the person of Authority in the scenario.
No longer binding?
Turek dodged the real question, that is, if moral values are imprinted on our hearts or on the Bible then why is it that one thinks that killing a thief is a murder and others think it's right because that would be just self defense? Is it a minor issue? And even if it was a minor issue, why can't it be taken the same way by all of us since it's supposed to be part of an objective system of moral values?
@2centavos why?
@2centavos it's just an example, not necessarily the same they presented in the video. The basic question that Turek avoided is that this objective moral law that is supposedly existent is perceived differently by different groups of people including different groups of Christians. Let's say death penalty, for convicted murderers, for example. Or even lethal preemptive atacks in a war, like in Iroshima. These are not minor details and still there are different perceptions of what is moral to do. If they were objectively imprinted in our hearts we should all have the same perception, but that's not the case.
@2centavos not at all. I'm talking about how we judge not what we do.
@2centavos When we talk about what could be imprinted or not in our hearts we still stick to the video. That's what Moses meant with his question that if there's an objective moral system in the Bible then why are there different ways that different sects of Christians take it. He showed just one example. But, actually, there are others. Was Yroshyma bomb killing or murdering? Euthanasia, is one more. Is it killing or murdering? So, Turek says it's not just in the Bible, it's also in our hearts. But the question remains. If it's objectively in our hearts why can't we agree about what is wrong and right. That's what Moses was pointing out.
@2centavos actually, you should start at 0:00 and go to 1:48. That's what is going to give you the right context of Moses' question.