Posted on 10/29/2017 8:51:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
Ummm...yes. Yes he did!
But the point is, Jesus’s handpicked group had weapons on hand. I do not see this as a call to go out and acquire weapons (though most of us do that anyway) but it certainly throws ice water on pacifists.
As for his interpretation that Jesus needed some weapons around to shore up the charges against him, those charges were based upon his teachings and not his zealotry with armed insurrection.
Sounds to me like he was talking about Judas. "Let the one who betrayed me (and has the money to prove it) clear out of here. And he'd be wise to arm up on the way out."
Jesus was not anti-weapon. Weapons were used throughout the entire Bible for the defense of property, defense of person, defense of wealth. If God gives us something it’s obvious He wants us to defend it.
Self defense always permitted ,but not required except by those who have duties like parents who have children to raise.
Defense of others always required if possible.
Jesus died for our good and salvation.. He said forgive them for they know not what they do.
And we should sacrifice ourselves for good of others as did Christ for their good and when they know not what they do.
We should defend ourselves otherwise else we are committing suicide or sought martyrdom which is sinful.
Maybe these thoughts are Scriptural enough.
It would be nice to hear Opinions, Scriptural and logician reasons removed from Emotions to support either points of view.
Correct. (The Greek word translated “sword” is “machaira”, a single-edge weapon.) Peter even used his to slice off Malchus’ ear, which Jesus healed.
It was a figure of speech at the time. Jesus was just warning His disciples that they were about to become outlaws once they started preaching in His name.
It’s pretty clear that “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword” and forgive 70 times 7” and “turn the other cheek” and “..”give them your sandals” suggest martyrdom NOT sought out isn’t a sin, but a grace in the eye’s of God.
But we’re human and we DONT want to die or see our loved ones die.
Jesus said a lot of times the glory was after this life.
IF we followed his word.
Killing and Jesus’ words don’t go together. Not even in self defense, it would SEEM.
But then give to Caesar..that could mean military conscription too. Which would probably afford one the opportunity to kill.
Maybe Jesus just wanted us to use common sense in any given situation :)
If someone says “denounce Christianity or i will chop off your head”, I would hope I didn’t denounce him even if it cost my my life.
If muslims are at my gates and want to kill me and rape my wife, I think Jesus would say “What are you nuts, not defending yourself and your family!?! Don’t take me so literally!!! :)
I’m likely way off but at least it might open up some discussion on how to interpret the pacifistic statements.
Theologians are like public toilets. You can find one practically anywhere, and they're almost always full of crap.
The Bible (depending on the version you subscribe to) also tells us the battle (or battles ) with our enemies is going to happen. So in addition to personal weapons, we should also have Ranged weapons.
See 1 Samuel 17.
The story is one often quoted from Scripture.
To cut to the chase, Dr. Brown is saying you can’t be a Christian and a gun owner.
Although he (grudgingly) admits that maybe churches might have security, perhaps retired soldiers disqualified from serving, per their pious fellows, as deacons or elders due to their violent past.
Or he’s saying that the scripture cited says the opposite of what Jesus said ... because He was being ironic.
I suppose you must need a degree in theology to understand plain English, but I don’t recall from countless sermons and Sunday school lessons that Jesus was much of a stand-up comic.
This is as offensive as the Church 500 years ago opposed to a Bible in the `vulgate’ because then parishioners might start asking stupid questions. In so many words, he’s tinkling down our laymen legs.
Nehemiah. Nuff said.
Speaking of reading in context; the author is forgetting what follows the Garden of Gethsemane.
The apostles would be on the run or in hiding as hunted men. Every hand would be against them.
Jesus knew this. They would no longer be a unified group but on the run as individuals or pairs. Two swords would not be enough.
Why did Jesus rebuke Peter just a few minutes later for using his sword against the soldiers who came to take Him
Why was Peter rebuked?
First, it was necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecies for Jesus to be taken and crucified. Second, his followers must not be seen to be combatants of lawful authority.
However, in the coming days, Jesus followers would also be persecuted by the unlawful and would need to defend themselves from those who would prey upon those fleeing the authorities. Those living outside the law will be preyed upon by others living outside of the law and will need to defend themselves.
Clearly. He troop was clearly armed most all of the time. Never enough for an offensive operation, merely enough to defend themselves. Yeshua did not let the guard down until the garden, when he voluntarily surrender, because it was time for that to occur.
In never saw where the “turn the other cheek” dictat was for those who wanted to harm/kill you - it was pretty much a rehash of the Old Testament telling folks to treat the ass-hats with kindness as it would be akin to pouring hot coals over their heads.
Context, context, context.
Weapons for protection are neither always O.K. nor always to be condemned. I believe the context of protection is where any judgment about them would be, the same as it is when we proclaim it is not the gun that kills someone.
Maybe the Romans kept a gun registry, but not of swords...so swords was the smart way to go. “Be wise as serpents” and all that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.