Again, my point is not moot. Your view here is illogical because we learn that the main reason for them having the two words was to fulfill prophecy and that when Peter did use one of these swords two swords (and not swords for each of them), Peter was rebuked in 4 ways by the Lord Jesus Christ for using his sword in violent self defense. After Jesus rebuked Peter, we don’t read anywhere later in the New Testament of the disciples even having swords let alone using them in violent self defense. So this is why your point in return is untenable when looking at the Bible. You have no biblical case for New Testament violent self defense. On the contrary, Jesus and the apostles taught Non-Violence (While living out one’s faith).
It is a moot point because I am not debating whether Jesus taught non violence. He did. As I have stated several times, I am concerned with the statement made in the OP:
These MASS murders, and MANY more that we see on a regular basis, shows that it is both UNBIBLICAL and UNCHRISTIAN for anyone, especially if the are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, to own any form of weapon!
Not just guns; weapons! I haveclearly shown that Jesus told the disciples to buy swords, and some of them already had them. Yes, Jesus taught non violence. Yes he rebuked Peter. I am not debating that, which makes it a moot point.
Your argument is a misconnect. This is not the point I was making. N
Well you get to have your point a d I get to have mine!
Nowhere did I say that the disciples did not have swords when Judas and the others came to arrest Jesus
That's right, you didn't say that at all and I never said you did. Here is what you said:
"
#2. When we read the New Testament: We learn that the apostles did not carry swords in the New Testament as per the instruction of Luke 22:36. We read nothing about the disciples carrying swords or using swords to kill or harm others in their own self defense"
My point is that we do!
Again, the point of the disciples having the swords was for Jesus to fulfill the prophecy in being numbered with the transgressors.
Let's end this error right now. Here is the verse in question:
Luke 22:36-37 KJV
one. [37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished v in me, And he was
reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
Here is the prophecy:
Isaiah 53:12 KJV
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death:
and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
Is it your claim that Peter using his sword made him the transgressor or that the swords symbolized the transgressors? Well here is the fulfilling of the prophecy:
Mark 15:27-28 KJV
And with him they crucify
two thieves; r the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. [28] And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was
numbered with the transgressors.
Ste swords had nothing to do with it. Swords are not transgressors, Peter wasn't one of them and in no way do swords come into this prophecy.
We don’t see anywhere else in the New Testament of the disciples using swords let alone using them for violent self defense reasons
It simply isn't spoken of. It also never says that they got rid of the swords which the Bible says they did own. As for your examples, they are very short sighted and cannot be taken seriously.
t’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
It's is stupid. Jesus did not tell them to buy guns because they did not exist back then. The sword was the cutting-edge (no pun intended) weapon of the day.
merely said this because your view is not in any way biblical
What? That Jesus told them to buy swords? That's not biblical?
As for Jesus "beating". I did mispeak. The Bible says he cast them out or drove them out. He did have a whip though. What was that for?