The Insanity of the "right" to have guns!

[Naomanos]

You know who these people are?
The ones who control everything.
Everything.
Have you heard of who controls the world?
Everything you eat, where, live, raise your children, education, technology, medical, pharmaceuticals.. everything..
And when they come, and they will, if you don't want to be turned into a hybrid, you better be prepared to defend yourself.
And don't reply without watching the videos I don't post them for my benefit. I already know.

I reiterate, keep your head out of conspiracy sites. They seem to be warping your mind some.

 

[Ziggy]

I reiterate, keep your head out of conspiracy sites. They seem to be warping your mind some.

That video was an actual World Economic Forum Event, no conspiracy theory, conspiracy FACT.
FACTS matter. Something the LEFT can't understand.

If your life was in jeopardy and I was close by, I would do everything in my power to save you.
I'm concerned however, if the shoe was on the other foot...
Just sayin

 

[Ziggy]

This is one of the most irrational, disturbed things I have read on this forum.

You're "for life" but you need a gun "to hold onto life and secure it so we can have peace." You need to check into the local sanitarium.

SMH

 

[Jim B]

Yea, better to keep having school shootings and kids murdered than arming the responsible adults with the children.

Why did the trained police hesitate for so long before trying to rescue the children? And you think that untrained people would have done a better job than the police? You are clearly deluded!

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Why did the trained police hesitate for so long before trying to rescue the children? And you think that untrained people would have done a better job than the police? You are clearly deluded!

so only police are trained?? You dont think civilians have any training??

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

NO. Jesus is explicitly said to me, as we are, the sons of God.

The Jesus who said that to you is certainly not the Jesus of the Bible

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Yea, better to keep having school shootings and kids murdered than arming the responsible adults with the children.

Because of the crazy gun laws in the US this problem is not going to go away but only get much worse

 

[Wrangler]

The Jesus who said that to you is certainly not the Jesus of the Bible

It's the only Jesus.

Jesus’ own explicit statements is that he has a God (John 20:17), and Jesus’ God is the only true God (John 17:3). There simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

Acts 17:31 emphasizes that God selected this man. If Jesus were any kind or part of God, such an absurd verse meaning ‘God selected a man, who is himself in the form of a man’ would never be written because it serves no purpose and violates 2 Cor 1:13 (VOICE) We are not writing to you in anything resembling codes or riddles.


Colossians 3:12 points out that we too are chosen by God. John 1:12 says that we too are sons and daughters of God. So, while Jesus was the only son of God, as all firstborns are, he is no longer the only son of God. This is the theological inheritance the Bible speaks of. Jesus is one of ‘us’ (teaching us to pray to God as a brother to our father), not one of ‘them’ (pray to me or to F, S & HS).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

As to your second point:

1. No we don't learn that the Apostles did not carry swords as instructed in Luke. They did carry spiritual swords as can be proven, but we don't know that "the Apostles" didn't.
2. Yes, we actually do read about the disciples carrying swords, and yes we read about them literally using them. Your first point disproves this as you noted Peter had a sword and actually used it; and your second point disproves your second point by noting the disciples had two of them. We don't even know which two. Heck they could've both been owned by the same disciple. Peter probably owned one of them, but John or James the other (Peter, John and James were the ones that went to the garden with Jesus).

Your argument is a misconnect. This is not the point I was making. Nowhere did I say that the disciples did not have swords when Judas and the others came to arrest Jesus. Again, the point of the disciples having the swords was for Jesus to fulfill the prophecy in being numbered with the transgressors. Those who transgressed what? God’s laws. So Peter acted violently whereby he fulfilled prophecy in Jesus being numbered with the transgressors. Yet, Jesus did not praise Peter for taking up His sword, but He rebuked Peter (even though it was a part of fulfilling prophecy).

My second point is that AFTER Peter used his sword (with Jesus rebuking him): We don’t see anywhere else in the New Testament of the disciples using swords let alone using them for violent self defense reasons. For example: In Acts 5:40, we see the apostles are beaten, and let go. How would this be possible if they had swords? In Acts 7, we see Stephen stoned. Again, how was this possible if he had a sword? Do we read about how he used his sword in self defense? No. On the contrary, Stephen basically said to the Lord not to hold their sin of stoning him against them.

There are other examples like this whereby a sword possessed by a disciple would have changed the scenario or what was going on. So this leads us to the conclusion that Christians did not take swords and or fight because it is totally absent from the stories we read about them in book of the Acts of the Apostles. This is why your belief is not biblical.

You doubt anyone is making that case? Seems to me that you just made it!

Why do you think Jesus didn't tell them to literally buy a gun? It's a stupid question, I know because the answer is obvious. I and others are making this point about swords because the OP suggested it's unChristian to own WEAPONS.

It’s not a stupid question. Jesus did not tell them to buy a gun because we know Jesus did not tell them to do so. Folks here are looking to defend themselves with a gun and not a sword and yet Jesus told the disciples (NOT YOU or OTHER CHRISTIANS TODAY) to buy a sword. The two swords (and not swords for each of them) was to fulfill prophecy (Which Peter helped to fulfill), but as we learn Jesus did not favor Peter in using his sword for violent self defense.

It doesn't matter what we think? Are you included in this statement or are you just directing it to me? Because you are part of this conversation too.

I merely said this because your view is not in any way biblical.

Jesus... the Word made flesh (and the guy who literally made a literally whip and literally cast people out of the temple) literally said to buy a sword. Yes, he did teach nonviolence (except when beating the money changers). I too am for non violence. But, I am not like "most" people here. I don't own a gun. I owned one for a out 2 years, but the was 25-30 years ago.

You you really know that most here wouldn't give up their gun for Jesus? Is that what you think? Well it's a good thing it doesn't matter because Jesus isn't asking anyone to do so.


I take it that you would rather not discuss the Old Testament or the Book of Revelation. Except for the fact that Jesus drove out moneychangers with a whip... well, you would be surprised. Friend.

As for the sword:

I already addressed this point with you several times. But you don’t seem to understand or accept it, friend.

As for your claim that Jesus used a whip to beat the money changers:

If you are saying “beat” so as to gain victory, then this would be true. But that would not be a case for Violent Self Defense or even Violent Force because nobody was harmed. If you are saying that “beat” here is used in reference to physically hurting or harming the money changers then this would not be accurate. Nowhere do we read about how the Lord Jesus had actually physically harmed the money changers. If that is what you are suggesting, that would be your imagination working overtime and not what the Bible actually says.

Think. If Jesus shot flaming arrows at the money changers (but shot in a way that missed them but only to scare them), this could have been used against him at his trial. Why? Because flaming arrows can kill a person. A whip is not that lethal as a flaming arrow. No money changer came forth at Jesus’ trial showing how they were beaten or hurt by Jesus so as to accuse Him.

As for Revelation:

I am assuming you are referring to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. If this is what you are referring to, this would not be applicable to the life of Christian living out their faith because the saints who are following Jesus into battle are disembodied saints who have already lived out their faith already. So yes. I am not against this event taking place. The Second Coming of Jesus will be very violent but the point here is that we are told to follow Jesus in context to His life and or ministry and not based on His violent Second Coming. Scripture says, vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord (Romans 12:19).

 

[Wrangler]

Because of the crazy gun laws in the US this problem is not going to go away but only get much worse

See my thread on analysis of mass murder.

 

[Naomanos]

If your life was in jeopardy and I was close by, I would do everything in my power to save you.
I'm concerned however, if the shoe was on the other foot...

I absolutely would as that is what my nature is.

I am not a leftist. I am a moderate. I don't care for those videos because it is conspiracy to me, no matter who it comes from. They won't be doing what they said. That is why I said people talk, doesn't mean that they will do what they're saying.

If it does happen it happens, I will deal with it then. That is how I do things.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Because of the crazy gun laws in the US this problem is not going to go away but only get much worse

by all means, explain the “crazy” part? Is it the 20,000 laws that we already have? Or the fact that the criminals dont follow them?

 

[BarneyFife]

Because of the crazy gun laws in the US this problem is not going to go away but only get much worse

If it weren't for the oppression from the British, we probably wouldn't even have the 2nd amendment, as it is written. Just sayin'.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

It's the only Jesus.

Jesus’ own explicit statements is that he has a God (John 20:17), and Jesus’ God is the only true God (John 17:3). There simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.

Acts 17:31 emphasizes that God selected this man. If Jesus were any kind or part of God, such an absurd verse meaning ‘God selected a man, who is himself in the form of a man’ would never be written because it serves no purpose and violates 2 Cor 1:13 (VOICE) We are not writing to you in anything resembling codes or riddles.


Colossians 3:12 points out that we too are chosen by God. John 1:12 says that we too are sons and daughters of God. So, while Jesus was the only son of God, as all firstborns are, he is no longer the only son of God. This is the theological inheritance the Bible speaks of. Jesus is one of ‘us’ (teaching us to pray to God as a brother to our father), not one of ‘them’ (pray to me or to F, S & HS).

Thomas told Jesus "my Lord and my God" and Jesus accepted it without rebuking Thomas.

The Father address Jesus as "your throne O God" acknowledge that Jesus is God

Etc etc

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

If it weren't for the oppression from the British, we probably wouldn't even have the 2nd amendment, as it is written. Just sayin'.

If it were not for the English there would be no America

Just sayin'

 

[Wrangler]

If it were not for the English there would be no America

Just sayin'

Irrelevant. Just saying.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

by all means, explain the “crazy” part? Is it the 20,000 laws that we already have? Or the fact that the criminals dont follow them?

By adding the right to own weapons in the Constitution

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

Irrelevant. Just saying.

Another FACT that you guys cannot stomach

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

By adding the right to own weapons in the Constitution

the rights already existed, our Founders just made sure that govt understood that.

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

Imagine thinking the right to self defense is a “crazy” right. It makes me wonder what other rights we have do you consider to be crazy?