rumitoid

When you read a headline like that, what is your reaction? Be honest. You may think there is only one appropriate reaction and any man or woman would feel the same, but you are wrong. It should not excite or please. This Absolute has always bothered me: "Everyone is capable of murder." That is a big, fat lie. There is more than ample proof that it is a big, fat lie yet those that believe it prefer not to see that evidence. That all people would k**l out of defense of self, or family, or country, or faith, or an ideal, for wh**ever grand or ignoble reason, if possible, is patently false. So if it is patently false, what do you who believe that everyone is capable of murder think of those seemingly incapable of taking another life? Cowards? Wusses? Mentally defective? Saints?

Jesus said, "Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." John15:13. Why? The problem with Jesus is this: his way is contrary to worldly values and radically different than conventional wisdom. His down is your up, his up is your down when worldly in convictions. Always! For him, death is not an end but a glorious new beginning. Paul describes life on earth as living in a tent: very temporary. Death comes to us all: how we take it, if given the opportunity, matters. Showing mercy, love, compassion, and forgiveness "though yet shall he slay me" seems too ridiculous. What honorable man would think like that, right? Any man!

But self-preservation, for us and others we care for, is a very strong instinct. And that is to varying degrees in people for a wide variety of reasons. What would you think of these two brothers who, at risk of great possible harm or even death, merely tried to subdue the suspect? Growing up in da Bronx I know the answer: f****** stupido. The robber is seen as trash, disposable. "And that's the right thing to do, Antonio, my hand to Jesus. Scum like that don't deserve to live." Everyone nods.

The wuss, Jesus, disagrees. Does it matter?

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Let me tell you,Rumi, if somebody hurts any member of my family or friends,you better believe it this person will end up in the hospital, and if god forbids somebody k**ls any of my loved ones, they will end up in the morgue....No question about it...

rumitoid

OKay. I understand. That is the pre-dominant view. Did you ever seriously question it?

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

No!

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

this should give you some real insight
http://bigfaithministries.com/biblical-scriptures-regarding-armed-self-defense/

rumitoid

I will read it crayons, but I have studied this point for thirty years. Yet maybe I will see something new. Thank you for the site, very gracious.

rumitoid

The major problem with this piece is its seeming reliance on this: "Jesus was emphatic in the need to acquire swords for self-defense by his insistence to buy them if necessary before embarking upon their new commission to go out into the world and preach the gospel." However, this "insistence" had nothing to do about self-defense, not even close. It was fulfillment of prophecy.

Then Jesus said, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the t***sgressors’; and I will tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (vs. 36–37).

The disciples happen to have two swords with them, so they showed them to Jesus. “That is enough” he replied (vs. 38). Think about that. How is that self-defense for twelve? Why would Jesus say two swords for twelve people, traveling in groups of two on divergent paths, was enough? Makes no sense--if for self-defense! But you have Jesus saying it. Why?

First, when Peter used the sword against those who were arresting him, Jesus responded “No more of this!” and healed the man’s ear that was cut off. Jesus rebuked him and told him to put it back in at sheath where it belongs (Luke 22:47-51). When Jesus appears before Pilate he gives the fact that his followers are not fighting as proof that his kingdom “is not of this world.” In this light, it seems clear, wh**ever Jesus had in mind in telling his disciples to bring swords along with them, it wasn’t for them to ever use them.

What other reason might Jesus have had for making his disciples bring swords? The answer is provided by Jesus himself as explains that it was to fulfill the prophecy, “He was numbered with the t***sgressors” (Is 53:12). To fulfill prophecy as well as to further force the hand of the authorities, if necessary, Jesus and his band of disciples had to appear to be criminals. More specifically, they had to appear like a typical band of sword wielding zealots, thus justifying the arrest and eventual execution of their leader.

This explains why Jesus says, “It is enough,” when the disciples produce only two swords. If Jesus expected his disciples to actually engage in sword fighting, two swords would obviously be completely inadequate. But for the mere purpose of appearing to be a band of lawbreaking zealots, two swords would suffice.

In light of this, it seems to me that justifying the use of violence by citing this passage is as unwarranted as citing the temple cleansing passage to this effect.

JW

Jesus demonstrated what happens if you don't take steps to protect yourself.

woodguru

If I catch an intruder in my house he will have one chance to do exactly what I tell him to do, if he complies, lays down on the ground, the police can deal with him. If he makes a single wrong move he'll be shot. I do not hold with the automatic position that he deserves to be shot on default.

rumitoid

The major problem with this piece is its seeming reliance on this: "Jesus was emphatic in the need to acquire swords for self-defense by his insistence to buy them if necessary before embarking upon their new commission to go out into the world and preach the gospel." However, this "insistence" had nothing to do about self-defense, not even close. It was fulfillment of prophecy.

Then Jesus said, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the t***sgressors’; and I will tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment” (vs. 36–37).

The disciples happen to have two swords with them, so they showed them to Jesus. “That is enough” he replied (vs. 38). Think about that. How is that self-defense for twelve? Why would Jesus say two swords for twelve people, traveling in groups of two on divergent paths, was enough? Makes no sense--if for self-defense! But you have Jesus saying it. Why?

First, when Peter used the sword against those who were arresting him, Jesus responded “No more of this!” and healed the man’s ear that was cut off. Jesus rebuked him and told him to put it back in at sheath where it belongs (Luke 22:47-51). When Jesus appears before Pilate he gives the fact that his followers are not fighting as proof that his kingdom “is not of this world.” In this light, it seems clear, wh**ever Jesus had in mind in telling his disciples to bring swords along with them, it wasn’t for them to ever use them.

What other reason might Jesus have had for making his disciples bring swords? The answer is provided by Jesus himself as explains that it was to fulfill the prophecy, “He was numbered with the t***sgressors” (Is 53:12). To fulfill prophecy as well as to further force the hand of the authorities, if necessary, Jesus and his band of disciples had to appear to be criminals. More specifically, they had to appear like a typical band of sword wielding zealots, thus justifying the arrest and eventual execution of their leader.

This explains why Jesus says, “It is enough,” when the disciples produce only two swords. If Jesus expected his disciples to actually engage in sword fighting, two swords would obviously be completely inadequate. But for the mere purpose of appearing to be a band of lawbreaking zealots, two swords would suffice.

In light of this, it seems to me that justifying the use of violence by citing this passage is as unwarranted as citing the temple cleansing passage to this effect.

rumitoid

What do you think now, crayons?

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

We're not goin to see eye to eye, but as a believer, God gave us the 'free will' to responsibly provide for and protect our families. One must have spiritual discernment in the defense of your family as well as the defense of your nation.
I lean more toward the report in Judges where Gideon selected his best 300 men by determining who was alert
and who's heads were always on the swivel looking for the enemy.

The right of self defense is the God Givin prerogative of any believer...In the book of Numbers you will see the authorization of a military force for Israel, the call to arms, the conscription and training of young men...ya with me?

In old testament times the spiritual life of believers encouraged leadership and service for the freedom of Israel as portrayed in the book if Nehemiah...remember any of the teaching? Those with wisdom and those prepared
and equipped for battle had the basic essentials for preserving their heritage and their nation.

rumitoid

Good points. What do you think of my comments about your link? Agree or disagree? Do you see the Bible needs a deeper read?

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

You seem to be fixated on the 2 swords, but failed to come to grips with the fact that it
was a crime in those days to own a roman sword, but apparently the disciples were fearless
to the end in the face of the superior Roman legions. Not to mention they were all eventually
martyred.

But stepping back to the old testament in Deuteronomy , you'll find that the Jewish infantry
was the finest in the world, but if you'll remember, they did not possess a calvary or char**ts;
they simply just weren't afraid. Ask yourself why

rumitoid

Disappointing. Had our situations been reversed, I would have thanked you for a better understanding of scripture. I was not fixated on 2 swords, Jesus was. The amount was unimportant but necessary. Just having any weapon, as you pointed out, was the point: “He was numbered with the t***sgressors” (Is 53:12). Not self-defense.