The Insanity of the "right" to have guns!

[Wrangler]

Typical close-minded nonsense.

Your only hope is personal attack to deflect from your support of Leftism.

 

[Wrangler]

I believe Christians can own guns for hunting for food.

How magnanimous of you!

Implied is the heart of a totalitarian dictator who covets the power to limit how people use their own property.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

338

I am one of those guys who would shoot a rapist trying to rape my wife, daughter or grand daughter.

Obeying the desires of the flesh and mind this is natural.

However, Lot has biblical witness that he was just and righteous (2 Peter 2:7).

Here’s how Lot resolved a similar situation:

“And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.” (Genesis 19:7-8)

Lot did not threaten to kill them. And moreover the angels that were in his house didn’t kill them either (though they eventually died in God’s wrath later).

And many righteous persons suffered:

“And others had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not worthy) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.” (Hebrews 11:36-38)

And the Lord said:

“…whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.” (Matthew 16:25)

Something to ponder.

 

[APAK]

I will let this Christian article hopefully provide a better answer than I can give.

GO BUY A SWORD!” LUKE 22 AND CHRISTIAN GUNSLINGERS

By: Preston Sprinkle

Whenever I talk about Christians and violence, guns and self-defense, it’s inevitable that

Luke 22 will come up. Supposedly, this passage supports the view that Jesus wants his followers to pack some heat while they go about preaching the kingdom of God. Jerry Fallwell Jr. recently used this passage to show that Christians should arm themselves so that “we could end those Muslims before they walked in…” Better think twice before bringing your muslim friends to hear the gospel at a Liberty chapel. They may be met with the good news of Smith & Wesson before they hear about a crucified Lamb.

John Piper has recently called Fallwell out for using sloppy exegesis of this passage. And Piper is right. Without further ado, here’s Jesus’s supposed command to “end those Muslims” with our guns:

And he said to them, “When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?” They said, “Nothing.” He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.” And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.” (Luke 22:35-38)

So, Jesus tells them to go buy a sword, and lo and behold, two of them (probably Peter and Simon the Zealot) had swords already. “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” Jesus ends the discussion with a curious phrase: “It is enough.” Which raises the question: enough for what?

This has always struck me as odd, since two swords for 11 disciples are not enough for self-defense, especially if they go out two by two as they did before. Plus, nowhere else does Jesus allow for violence in self-defense. Is Jesus now adding some footnotes to his Sermon on the Mount?

A few years ago I remember searching 10 of the most respected commentators on Luke—many of whom definitely aren’t pacifists—to see if I was the only one who thought the “violent self-defense” view was a bit odd. I wasn’t. Of the 10, I found only 1 that took the self-defense view. And he didn’t give any scriptural support for this view.

The late New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall says that the command to buy a sword is “a call to be ready for hardship and self-sacrifice.” Darrell Bock says that the command to buy a sword symbolically “points to readiness and self-sufficiency, not revenge.” Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer writes, “The introduction of the ‘sword’ signals” that “the Period of the Church will be marked with persecution,” which of course we see throughout the book of Acts. And the popular Reformed commentator, William Hendrickson, puts it bluntly: “The term sword must be interpreted figuratively.”

As I searched and searched, I couldn’t find any credible, non-pacifist Bible scholar who argued that Luke 22 is talking about self-defense. (I’ve since found that Wayne Grudem also assumes the self-defense view, but again, with little to no biblical argument and he doesn’t wrestle with the other contextual features that go against this view.)

So when Jesus tells them to buy a sword, he could be speaking figuratively about imminent persecution. According to this interpretation, when the disciples eagerly reveal that they already have two swords, they misunderstand Jesus’ figurative language (this wasn’t the first time). When Jesus sees that his disciples misunderstand him, he ends the dialogue with, “It is enough,” which means something like “enough of this conversation.”

This interpretation makes good sense in light of the context. But there’s another interpretation that I think does slightly more justice to the passage.

Notice that right after Jesus says “buy a sword,” he quotes Isaiah 53:12, which predicts that Jesus would be “numbered with the transgressors”(Luke 22:37). Then, the disciples reveal that they already have two swords, to which Jesus says “it is enough.” Now, Rome only crucified those who were a potential threat to the empire. For Jesus to be crucified, Rome would have to convict him as a potential revolutionary. And this is the point of the swords. With swords in their possession, Jesus and His disciples would be viewed as potential revolutionaries and Jesus would therefore fulfill Isaiah 53 to be numbered with other (revolutionary) transgressors. If Rome didn’t have any legal grounds to incriminate Jesus, there would have been no crucifixion.

This interpretation makes good sense of the quote from Isaiah 53 and the flow of Jesus’s ethical teaching. Up until Luke 22, Jesus has prohibited his followers from using violence, even in self-defense. Is Jesus now changing his mind by telling his followers to use the sword in self-defense? It seems better to take his command to buy a sword as we have suggested: Jesus is providing Rome with evidence to put Him on the cross.

So we could view Jesus’ command as a figurative expression about their coming suffering or as a way of ensuring His own crucifixion. Either way, it’s highly unlikely that Jesus encourages violent self-defense here.

In fact, just a few verses later, Peter wields one of the two swords and Jesus rebukes him: “No more of this!” (22:51). Peter, along with some interpreters, misunderstood Jesus’s previous command to buy a sword. And remember: When Jesus rebuked Peter, it wasn’t just because Jesus needed to suffer and die. He followed up his rebuke with a categorical statement about swords (guns) and violence: “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” (Matt 26:52).

Whatever you think about these two possible interpretations, every responsible interpreter must deal with (1) Jesus’s statement that “it is enough” and (2) how this event fulfills Isa 53:12. Interpretations that don’t deal with these aren’t responsible interpretations.

Whatever Jesus meant by his command to buy a sword, it doesn’t seem that he intended it to be used for violence.​

Source:
“Go Buy a Sword!” Luke 22 and Christian Gunslingers – Theology in the raw
(Note: I agree with the article, but that does not mean I agree with other things the author may believe).

This Preston article is one that is politically charged and with a narrow and heavy bias purposely twisting the right view of scripture, truly.

Luke 22:35-38 is about the necessity of the disciplines to have weapons and other items of survival after Christ spoke of the prophecy having to be fulfilled, by him dying on the Cross and that being with them they had need of nothing. The logical conclusion then is that they would be alone to fend for themselves and required to store food and weapons for defense on their journeys.

And the significance of buying one or two swords was used as a primer as a start of more that would be required in their future. As an example of what they and others would need in the near-future for the rest of their lives. This was all new to them to even comprehend why Christ was saying these things from the start. It would not take them long to know why these instructions were vital to preserve their lives. And many died by the sword or imprisoned, then killed. He was telling them their physical lives needed safeguarding because of his death. His physical protection on earth would be gone although he still would be with them in spirit.

And the answer to why 'that it was enough' as spoken by Christ is because for the immediate purpose at hand before he went to the Cross these weapons and sacks were sufficient. Christ knew that each one did not need a sword or lots of sack bags. Christ did not extend his meaning to what they would require in the future. They would have to gauge that for themselves at that time.

And to think that a sword is symbolic of hardship is laughable. Yes, there will be hardship indeed and that is why you have a physical sword to eliminate this hardship by opposing life-threatening threats if required from beast or man, indeed!

 

[Wrangler]

I will let this Christian article hopefully provide a better answer than I can give.

GO BUY A SWORD!” LUKE 22 AND CHRISTIAN GUNSLINGERS

By: Preston Sprinkle

Whenever I talk about Christians and violence, guns and self-defense, it’s inevitable that

Luke 22 will come up. Supposedly, this passage supports the view that Jesus wants his followers to pack some heat while they go about preaching the kingdom of God. Jerry Fallwell Jr. recently used this passage to show that Christians should arm themselves so that “we could end those Muslims before they walked in…” Better think twice before bringing your muslim friends to hear the gospel at a Liberty chapel. They may be met with the good news of Smith & Wesson before they hear about a crucified Lamb.

Well that was horrible answer. Your supposition is that when Fallwell said 'those Muslims,' meant people who want to learn about the Grace of God Through His Son Jesus Christ and not the murdering Islamic terrorists? Good grief!

 

[Wrangler]

I am one of those guys who would shoot a rapist trying to rape my wife, daughter or grand daughter.

Obeying the desires of the flesh and mind this is natural.

It is not desire of the flesh but moral righteousness to protect the innocent from violent criminals. I would and have acted accordingly.

The very idea that God wants his children to be slaughtered by evil is ridiculous on its face. IF there were ANY truth to what you are saying, Jesus would not be returning as a military conqueror.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

It is not desire of the flesh but moral righteousness

“and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked” (2 Peter 2:7)

Lot received this testimony from the Holy Spirit who inspired Peter to write this.

Lot’s actions in offering his daughters to a sex crazed mob was never a blot on his testimony.

How much are we willing to sacrifice for a good conscience before God?

Abraham was going to kill his son (Genesis 22:10).

 

[Enoch111]

This is racist, my friend.

Not in the least. Just look at the cold hard facts -- the statistics and the news reports. The "epithet" racist is now being used by the Leftists on anyone who dares speak out about (1) Black Racism, (2) Critical Race Theory, and (3) the criminality of huge numbers of blacks in the USA. They are getting a free pass daily.

 

[Wrangler]

Lot’s actions in offering his daughters to a sex crazed mob was never a blot on his testimony.

You are comparing making a sacrifice to protect God's messengers to NOT protecting innocent life. Wow!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well......I believe Christians can own guns for protection.
I am one of those guys who would shoot a rapist trying to rape my wife, daughter or grand daughter.
I am not one of those guys saying to a rapist: "Go ahead, rape some more."

You are under the false impression that Non-Violence means we cannot resist and or pull our attackers off of another and or to pin another down in a way that does not cause them any lethal harm so as to tell those in one’s family to run. Why does everyone think Non-Violence means you do nothing? I believe when Jesus said turn the other cheek, this applies to the individual and it is a slap to the face (According to Modern Translations). I don’t believe He was talking about a physical attacker who was out to do serious damage to another. Even if Jesus did mean a physical serious attack, the idea is not to take revenge by thinking an eye for an eye. The Lord Jesus did not say we cannot run, or move their fist out of the way, etcetera. The idea is not to take life when threatened. You don’t have to kill to protect yourself. That’s not the only option. The apostle Paul escaped in a basket and he did not turn himself in. The apostles escaped from prison (Which could mean a resistance to future beatings or torture).

The idea of resist not an evil person is in view of not taking revenge in hurting them (an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Proud. The point hinges on being proud of who you are and what you stand for.

Your posts only reinforce your Leftism. Only Leftists object to 'labels,' that properly identify reality.

What was it that Obama said, gun and Bible clingers? Not an insult to me.

I would not classify myself in the left or liberal camp. I believe the King James Bible is the pure Word of God (Which liberals hate). I believe the Bible is our guide for all matters for faith and practice, but I believe in Non-Violence not because that is what I started off believing, but because that is what the New Testament plainly teaches for believers under the New Covenant.

 

[BarneyFife]

Not in the least. Just look at the cold hard facts -- the statistics and the news reports. The "epithet" racist is now being used by the Leftists on anyone who dares speak out about (1) Black Racism, (2) Critical Race Theory, and (3) the criminality of huge numbers of blacks in the USA. They are getting a free pass daily.

"They" Yeah, that's not racist at all.

Oh well, what I've seen over the past few days has lowered my expectations of propriety considerably.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

If I had to choose, I lean more Republican, but I am not really into politics. I am simply into the Bible instead. The Lord Jesus and His followers taught Non-Violence. You will be hard pressed to find any verses in the New Testament that teach self defense by the use of lethal means. This is where the line in the sand is drawn here. I believe the Bible backs my position on this topic. But you are going by experience or by sight in what you see in the world around you.

Trust in the Lord.
He is your Protector (if it is His will to protect you).
For if God decides for you to be protected, nothing on this Earth will come against you to stop you.

Anyways, may the Lord bless you (even if we disagree).

Well thank you. I am just making observations about what I see. We have peace in Christ and no one can touch our spirits, just our bodies, which are already dying.

God told the Israelites to take the Promise Land, war against and kill all who possessed it. At times they were defeated and enslaved because it was God's will, punishment - for a time. But God assisted them to cleanse and make claim to the land.
He assisted Americans to do the same and we became great, only becauae men died for our country and freedoms. They died so that even passivists could live free, no thanks to them.
Evil has been judged before with the Flood and He will kill billions soon with fire. Do you think a gun can be compared to the sword that will come out of His mouth? It may be like a hundred volcanic eruptions at once.
Well, I don't own a gun - don't need one. But great nations and leaders rose to power because God ordained them to and it didn't happen through passivism. Wars were necessary, blood was shed. And the war between good and evil continues. We must take a stand against evil or be defeated. Jesus will with his angels and He will war against the nations that come against Jerusalem. He will not come passively next time, not as a Lamb, but as a Lion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How magnanimous of you!

Implied is the heart of a totalitarian dictator who covets the power to limit how people use their own property.

I don’t make the rules. The Lord Jesus does. Jesus teaches Non-Violence. Before studying the Bible, I used to think Christians could defend themselves with Violence or Lethal force. But the Bible convinced me otherwise. So my position is a biblical one and not a leftist one or “I just want to be a pacifist” one. So the selling point for me was Scripture.

I believe most do not like the idea of Non-Violence because for them, violence is all they have ever known and that’s what makes sense to them all their life. For them, violence is something that they have been conditioned into doing. Violence becomes their old friend that they don’t want to let go of. The words of Jesus can be changed or altered or ignored to keep their old friend of Violence.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

I too are born again! I know and love the LORD.

Blah, blah, blah... Here we go again with your bigoted left wing smear. You are the one who is bearing false witness against your neighbor. It's getting old!

That's one of the common words Lefties use, bigot. Then there is racist, homophobe, xenophobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, etc. The Right is all tired and of these false, endless accusations. BORED.

 

[ThePuffyBlob]

Buffalo shooter targeted Black neighborhood, officials say

i have uncensored video of how he do it if you want the link just say it but be aware that it is disturbing

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well thank you. I am just making observations about what I see. We have peace in Christ and no one can touch our spirits, just our bodies, which are already dying.

God told the Israelites to take the Promise Land, war against and kill all who possessed it. At times they were defeated and enslaved because it was God's will, punishment - for a time. But God assisted them to cleanse and make claim to the land.
He assisted Americans to do the same and we became great, only becauae men died for our country and freedoms. They died so that even passivists could live free, no thanks to them.
Evil has been judged before with the Flood and He will kill billions soon with fire. Do you think a gun can be compared to the sword that will come out of His mouth? It may be like a hundred volcanic eruptions at once.
Well, I don't own a gun - don't need one. But great nations and leaders rose to power because God ordained them to and it didn't happen through passivism. Wars were necessary, blood was shed. And the war between good and evil continues. We must take a stand against evil or be defeated. Jesus will with his angels and He will war against the nations that come against Jerusalem. He will not come passively next time, not as a Lamb, but as a Lion.

You are looking at things from a carnal or physical perspective. No country has any power to stand but by the power God gives to them so as to rule.

Romans 9:17
“For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”

As for the Old Testament Scriptures: Yes, God commanded the Israelite to destroy their enemies. Yes, God destroyed the world with a global flood. I am not in disagreement with these things. But our marching orders under the New Covenant are different. The New Covenant is different than the Old Covenant. We fight a spiritual war, and not a physical one. It does not matter how your rationalize history or guns, etcetera. The reality is that Jesus taught Non-Violence and you will not find anywhere where Jesus or His followers taught self defense by lethal means or that we should go to war.

Yes, this country had to go to war so that we can enjoy the freedoms we have. But again, GOD was the One who placed that power in them. It does not mean those Americans who died to give us our freedoms were perfectly in God’s will by going to war because God used Assyria (an unbelieving nation) as an arm of justice to punish Israel. It’s why one is supposed to obey the laws of the land unless they conflict with God’s laws (because to resist the powers of authority of a country is to resist God - Romans 13).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well thank you. I am just making observations about what I see. We have peace in Christ and no one can touch our spirits, just our bodies, which are already dying.

God told the Israelites to take the Promise Land, war against and kill all who possessed it. At times they were defeated and enslaved because it was God's will, punishment - for a time. But God assisted them to cleanse and make claim to the land.
He assisted Americans to do the same and we became great, only becauae men died for our country and freedoms. They died so that even passivists could live free, no thanks to them.
Evil has been judged before with the Flood and He will kill billions soon with fire. Do you think a gun can be compared to the sword that will come out of His mouth? It may be like a hundred volcanic eruptions at once.
Well, I don't own a gun - don't need one. But great nations and leaders rose to power because God ordained them to and it didn't happen through passivism. Wars were necessary, blood was shed. And the war between good and evil continues. We must take a stand against evil or be defeated. Jesus will with his angels and He will war against the nations that come against Jerusalem. He will not come passively next time, not as a Lamb, but as a Lion.

According to Bible history: God saved the Israelites from slavery. God saved Rahab and her household. God saved Peter out of prison by an angel. God saves not just one’s spirit, but He can save a person physically, too. Jesus said that snakes will bite them and they will not be harmed.

God is the Savior.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This Preston article is one that is politically charged and with a narrow and heavy bias purposely twisting the right view of scripture, truly.

Luke 22:35-38 is about the necessity of the disciplines to have weapons and other items of survival after Christ spoke of the prophecy having to be fulfilled, by him dying on the Cross and that being with them they had need of nothing. The logical conclusion then is that they would be alone to fend for themselves and required to store food and weapons for defense on their journeys.

And the significance of buying one or two swords was used as a primer as a start of more that would be required in their future. As an example of what they and others would need in the near-future for the rest of their lives. This was all new to them to even comprehend why Christ was saying these things from the start. It would not take them long to know why these instructions were vital to preserve their lives. And many died by the sword or imprisoned, then killed. He was telling them their physical lives needed safeguarding because of his death. His physical protection on earth would be gone although he still would be with them in spirit.

And the answer to why 'that it was enough' as spoken by Christ is because for the immediate purpose at hand before he went to the Cross these weapons and sacks were sufficient. Christ knew that each one did not need a sword or lots of sack bags. Christ did not extend his meaning to what they would require in the future. They would have to gauge that for themselves at that time.

And to think that a sword is symbolic of hardship is laughable. Yes, there will be hardship indeed and that is why you have a physical sword to eliminate this hardship by opposing life-threatening threats if required from beast or man, indeed!

I believe the two swords (and not a sword for each - which was not fulfilled) were only brought forth for the prophecy to be fulfilled. That’s the context. Jesus said it is enough. Obviously two swords are not enough for every single person to be supplied as He originally instructed. Once the two swords fulfilled their purpose of the prophecy, the two swords were no longer necessary. While the money bag (purse), and knapsack (scrip) were to be taken up this time to equip them when Christ was not with them anymore, the swords were were an exception to the rule because Jesus stated that he that lives by the sword shall die by the sword. Also, Jesus undid Peter’s damage rebuking the use of the sword. If the story was in favor of swords, it would be a positive lesson in Violence involving the two swords, but that’s simply not what we read in the Scriptures. The exact opposite message is given. The sword was an example in lesson of Non-Violence. To deny this is to deny what we clearly read in Scripture.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well that was horrible answer. Your supposition is that when Fallwell said 'those Muslims,' meant people who want to learn about the Grace of God Through His Son Jesus Christ and not the murdering Islamic terrorists? Good grief!

Even murdering Islamic terrorists need to hear about God’s saving grace. Remember, Jesus said to love your enemies, and not to kill them.