The BIble, the Second Amendment, Swords and Guns
Jul 13, 2014 11:27:23 #
mlkddk
Loc: Colorado
THE BIBLE, THE SECOND AMENDMENT, SWORDS AND GUNS
No matter your religious beliefs are, if you do believe in the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution, then you are aware of the Bibles continued emphasis on love, forgiveness, and turning the other cheek. It is therefore surprising to find Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36. But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag, and if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Did Jesus now advocate the possession and use of a sword for self-defense purposes?
I believe the only way to interpret the text is to take it at its literal and normal meaning. The anti-gun movement would interpret this text as figurative, and use the passage to further their absolute pacifist position that signs and words, and being so passive that the criminal is free to do his will to the victim. But if this sword is figurative, what about the cloak, the purse and the bag? Nevertheless, my view is that Jesus was teaching self-defense and would demonstrate the proper use of a sword later in the evening. And it says in the book of Proverbs that you are accosted by a wicked person, and you allow him liberty to do whatever without resisting, you are as he is. What would do if a wolf or dog attacked you? Just turn the other cheek?
Those closest to Jesus carried personal weapons in his presence. There are no absolute evidence of why, but perhaps it was in anticipation of trouble from the Jewish leadership or protection against robbers as documented in 2 Cor. 11:26. Paul in 2 Cor 11:26 cites the perils of robbers. Additionally, Jesus talked of a time when the disciples would need to acquire personal weapons, even more importantly than clothing. Jesus also communicated his desire that the disciples be armed for self-defense and deterrence, and not to be aggressive. Judea at this time in Christs life was much infested with criminals and wild beasts. The disciples were safe as long as the Lord was with them, but that time was ending and they would have to go into every part of the country and would need some protection from the beasts and wicked men. If either of these dangers found the disciples defenseless they would not hesitate to kill them.
It is my opinion that this passage is that Christ wanted us to be reasonably prepared to defend yourself and those around you from physical attacks, and trust in the Spirit of the God rather than your own planning and power. It is well within your vocation to protect you and yours and stop the offender by force There is no Scriptural warrant for self-defense in the case of persecution. Self defense is a basic, natural right of all men and women, and there should be no lawful government on earth that would deny this right. Why some suppose that this basic right of self-defense should be denied to those who meet the letter of the law cannot be explained. Not to resist evil, to go the second mile, turn that other cheek, or give up your possessions are not applicable to times when ones life is threatened or endangered. I believe the view maintained by this Bible passage is that Jesus was teaching self-defense. One also might interpret the Bible as it was written as a documentary of a work in progress, that it documented changing times. The disciples were well protected when Christ was on earth, but his departure left them without his abundant provision of all their needs. Therefore, one would believe Christ was ordering them to prepare prudent precautions against the trials they would face in their quest to spread the gospel which would include arming themselves against physical dangers.
Christ did not instruct the disciples to hurt or make war with the weapons but rather to carry them only as a defensive tool. The country they were being sent into was extremely dangerous, they would face universal opposition, and even be put to death. Those who say Christians or anyone else may not defend themselves in the face of mortal danger do so without the support of the Bible or our Constitution.
The hardest part of this passage to understand is Christs directive to buy a sword. The weapon of choice for those traveling at this time was a machaira a relatively short sword, the handgun of the ancient world. The problem is that Jesus decries violence, yet he does say literally to give up a garment to defend themselves against possible deadly circumstances of which the disciples might encounter. Whether those who now choose to carry a gun do so because of a belief in the 2nd Amendment, have a recognition of how bad things can get, or believe that the teaching of Christ prepare us to live in the present days, all of us realize that shootings happen in places where people are least likely to be able to defend themselves against those who want to kill and destroy, therefore we choose not be a victim. Those who carry take seriously the responsibility of carrying a firearm for the defense of ourselves and others, not to be transgressors, but to be prepared and self-sufficient in a hostile world.
No matter your religious beliefs are, if you do believe in the 2nd Amendment and our Constitution, then you are aware of the Bibles continued emphasis on love, forgiveness, and turning the other cheek. It is therefore surprising to find Jesus telling his disciples to buy a sword in Luke 22:36. But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag, and if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Did Jesus now advocate the possession and use of a sword for self-defense purposes?
I believe the only way to interpret the text is to take it at its literal and normal meaning. The anti-gun movement would interpret this text as figurative, and use the passage to further their absolute pacifist position that signs and words, and being so passive that the criminal is free to do his will to the victim. But if this sword is figurative, what about the cloak, the purse and the bag? Nevertheless, my view is that Jesus was teaching self-defense and would demonstrate the proper use of a sword later in the evening. And it says in the book of Proverbs that you are accosted by a wicked person, and you allow him liberty to do whatever without resisting, you are as he is. What would do if a wolf or dog attacked you? Just turn the other cheek?
Those closest to Jesus carried personal weapons in his presence. There are no absolute evidence of why, but perhaps it was in anticipation of trouble from the Jewish leadership or protection against robbers as documented in 2 Cor. 11:26. Paul in 2 Cor 11:26 cites the perils of robbers. Additionally, Jesus talked of a time when the disciples would need to acquire personal weapons, even more importantly than clothing. Jesus also communicated his desire that the disciples be armed for self-defense and deterrence, and not to be aggressive. Judea at this time in Christs life was much infested with criminals and wild beasts. The disciples were safe as long as the Lord was with them, but that time was ending and they would have to go into every part of the country and would need some protection from the beasts and wicked men. If either of these dangers found the disciples defenseless they would not hesitate to kill them.
It is my opinion that this passage is that Christ wanted us to be reasonably prepared to defend yourself and those around you from physical attacks, and trust in the Spirit of the God rather than your own planning and power. It is well within your vocation to protect you and yours and stop the offender by force There is no Scriptural warrant for self-defense in the case of persecution. Self defense is a basic, natural right of all men and women, and there should be no lawful government on earth that would deny this right. Why some suppose that this basic right of self-defense should be denied to those who meet the letter of the law cannot be explained. Not to resist evil, to go the second mile, turn that other cheek, or give up your possessions are not applicable to times when ones life is threatened or endangered. I believe the view maintained by this Bible passage is that Jesus was teaching self-defense. One also might interpret the Bible as it was written as a documentary of a work in progress, that it documented changing times. The disciples were well protected when Christ was on earth, but his departure left them without his abundant provision of all their needs. Therefore, one would believe Christ was ordering them to prepare prudent precautions against the trials they would face in their quest to spread the gospel which would include arming themselves against physical dangers.
Christ did not instruct the disciples to hurt or make war with the weapons but rather to carry them only as a defensive tool. The country they were being sent into was extremely dangerous, they would face universal opposition, and even be put to death. Those who say Christians or anyone else may not defend themselves in the face of mortal danger do so without the support of the Bible or our Constitution.
The hardest part of this passage to understand is Christs directive to buy a sword. The weapon of choice for those traveling at this time was a machaira a relatively short sword, the handgun of the ancient world. The problem is that Jesus decries violence, yet he does say literally to give up a garment to defend themselves against possible deadly circumstances of which the disciples might encounter. Whether those who now choose to carry a gun do so because of a belief in the 2nd Amendment, have a recognition of how bad things can get, or believe that the teaching of Christ prepare us to live in the present days, all of us realize that shootings happen in places where people are least likely to be able to defend themselves against those who want to kill and destroy, therefore we choose not be a victim. Those who carry take seriously the responsibility of carrying a firearm for the defense of ourselves and others, not to be transgressors, but to be prepared and self-sufficient in a hostile world.
Jul 13, 2014 12:03:05 #
Jul 13, 2014 12:25:51 #
user47602
Loc: ip 304.0.0.33.32
yeah...it's really hard to cram Jesus' message of peace & love into the 2nd amendment and stand-your-ground laws....I'll give you a 68%. :mrgreen:
Remember that the 2nd amendment is not about an individual's ability to protect themselves from thieves and murderers...but rather each states' ability to protect itself from the US government... at least it was when written.
Remember that the 2nd amendment is not about an individual's ability to protect themselves from thieves and murderers...but rather each states' ability to protect itself from the US government... at least it was when written.
Jul 13, 2014 12:31:44 #
mlkddk
Loc: Colorado
But here is the one item I was alluding to, the gun "control" grabbers would just have you turn the other cheek-----the premise is that the Bible and Jesus changed with changing times?
Jul 13, 2014 13:12:56 #
user47602 wrote:
Remember that the 2nd amendment is not about an individual's ability to protect themselves from thieves and murderers...but rather each states' ability to protect itself from the US government... at least it was when written.
Remember that the 2nd amendment is not about an individual's ability to protect themselves from thieves and murderers...but rather each states' ability to protect itself from the US government... at least it was when written.
Wrong. The founding fathers and the current SCOTUS, as well as legal commentators through the 1800s say you're wrong. It is an individual right, hence the use of the word "people."
Noice try, though. Thanks for playing.
Jul 13, 2014 20:28:12 #
"It is my opinion that this passage is that Christ wanted us to be reasonably prepared to defend yourself and those around you from physical attacks, and trust in the Spirit of the God rather than your own planning and power. It is well within your vocation to protect you and yours and stop the offender by force,"
So Christ is advocating trusting the spirit of god but to be ready, just in case.
Then, how do you reconcile it with Isaiah 2:3-4:
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
So Christ is advocating trusting the spirit of god but to be ready, just in case.
Then, how do you reconcile it with Isaiah 2:3-4:
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Jul 13, 2014 20:42:49 #
mlkddk
Loc: Colorado
Shall we say the Bible contradicts itself? That starts another arguement about turning the other cheek which if a criminal broke into your house with a gun in hand, would you defend yourself or just let him do whatever even if it meant losing your life and everyone in your family. I think the bible is not only a documentation of history, but also a guideline for changing times.
Jul 13, 2014 20:54:26 #
mlkddk, Jesus was telling his followers to be prepare for what is coming, not to go buy a sword but to be prepared for the worst. Peter said, Lord, See here, we have two, which Jesus said, that is enough, meaning put it away, I don't want to hear no more for a man who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. He wanted them to live by faith and if needed, to die for their faith. He did not want Peter to use a sword when Peter had cut off the ear of the soldier who came to arrest him.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm
http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm
Jul 12, 2019 13:26:50 #
Jul 12, 2019 19:08:34 #
Hamltnblue
Loc: Springfield PA
Turn the other cheek does not mean bend over and be slaughtered.
It's not taking offense and going the peaceful route. But when left no choice
it's best to be ready.
Anyone who is not prepared to protect themselves or family are irresponsible, especially in their own home.
It's not taking offense and going the peaceful route. But when left no choice
it's best to be ready.
Anyone who is not prepared to protect themselves or family are irresponsible, especially in their own home.
Jul 12, 2019 20:01:47 #
The N.R.A. as their last hope are how saying that Jesus is for the Second Amendment. In the Bible you said. Question: Who Bible?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.