Federal Troops in Washington DC

[Muna]

That’s how God hides things from the wisdom of world and reveals to those who are seeking the truth.

The number two in the Bible usually points to grace (New Testament, 2nd Testament) or the word of God (cloven tongues in Acts). The Bible is an amazing book!

The Bible is written in such a way that you can understand all doctrines 100% right or you can be lead down the “works salvation” road or the “I need guns” road.

Basically the Bible gives enough rope that it will hang everyone not seeking the truth. Hence all the crazy theologies in corporate “Christianity”.

For me the sword and the ear is what I was looking at, as well as the sword out of the mouth and the smiting mentioned in relation to the same, and the usual.

They were to buy one if they did not have one

Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip:
and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Luke 22:38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.

So they had swords in their possesion and soon after they ask specifically

Luke 22:49 When they which were about him saw what would follow,
they said unto him, Lord, shall we smite with the sword?

Mark leaves this one nameless

Mark 14:47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest,
and cut off his ear.

Which was not followed by a rebuke here in Mark, but is shown as being Peter

John 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

He was reproved this way here

John 18:11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

Whereas in Luke he says to him

Luke 22:51 And Jesus answered and said, Suffer ye thus far. And he touched his ear, and healed him.

And again this way

Mat 26:52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

They had swords in their posession though, were told to buy one if they did not have one, and even asked Jesus if they should smite them who came for Jesus

Jesus also said,

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Edit typo

 

[bdavidc]

I wonder why two swords were enough in Luke 22? That should be a sign as to what Jesus meant. Especially since just a few hours later Jesus said “Put up again Thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

So in your opinion why is Jesus saying to go buy a sword and then a couple hours later he warns against using the sword?

You are trying to set Jesus against Himself and that's not going to work. In Luke 22: 36 Jesus told His disciples to go buy a sword because trouble was coming and they needed to be ready. That wasn't a metaphor. That was a command. When they said "Here are two swords" Jesus said "It is enough" not because two swords would stop an army but because His point had been made: they were going to face real danger and they needed to be ready. A few hours later, in Matthew 26: 52 Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away, not because swords are evil, but because Peter was trying to stop the cross and that was God's will. Two different contexts. Two different applications. Scripture doesn't contradict itself. You do. Jesus wasn't anti-self defense. He was anti-Peter fighting God's will. Stop taking verses out of context and twisting them against each other to support your narrative. Either bow to all of God's Word or confess that you are rejecting it.

 

[IndianaRob]

You are trying to set Jesus against Himself and that's not going to work. In Luke 22: 36 Jesus told His disciples to go buy a sword because trouble was coming and they needed to be ready. That wasn't a metaphor. That was a command. When they said "Here are two swords" Jesus said "It is enough" not because two swords would stop an army but because His point had been made: they were going to face real danger and they needed to be ready. A few hours later, in Matthew 26: 52 Jesus tells Peter to put his sword away, not because swords are evil, but because Peter was trying to stop the cross and that was God's will. Two different contexts. Two different applications. Scripture doesn't contradict itself. You do. Jesus wasn't anti-self defense. He was anti-Peter fighting God's will. Stop taking verses out of context and twisting them against each other to support your narrative. Either bow to all of God's Word or confess that you are rejecting it.

I don’t contradict anything, I rightly divide between spiritual things and literal things. It would benefit you greatly to do the same.

In your view what does “they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” mean?

Is there an exception in this rule for self defense?

 

[Muna]

I don’t contradict anything, I rightly divide between spiritual things and literal things. It would benefit you greatly to do the same.

In your view what does “they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” mean?

Is there an exception in this rule for self defense?

Now if this was Peter (versus James here)

Acts 12:2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

That would fit better

 

[bdavidc]

I don’t contradict anything, I rightly divide between spiritual things and literal things. It would benefit you greatly to do the same.

In your view what does “they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” mean?

Is there an exception in this rule for self defense?

You're perverting Scripture. "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26: 52) was Jesus correcting Peter for attempting to fight against the cross, not prohibiting the defense of one's life. Luke 22: 36, Nehemiah 4:17–18, Exodus 22:2 all teach that God commands defense against actual threats. Scripture is not in conflict, you are. Stop spiritualizing clear commands to suit your agenda

 

[IndianaRob]

You're perverting Scripture. "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew 26: 52) was Jesus correcting Peter for attempting to fight against the cross, not prohibiting the defense of one's life. Luke 22: 36, Nehemiah 4:17–18, Exodus 22:2 all teach that God commands defense against actual threats. Scripture is not in conflict, you are. Stop spiritualizing clear commands to suit your agenda

Fascinating! In this verse Jesus says we should not resist evil. Are you saying we should resist evil only if it’s a minor offense like a slap on the face? Am I misunderstanding this one too?

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

 

[Muna]

Fascinating! In this verse Jesus says we should not resist evil. Are you saying we should resist evil only if it’s a minor offense like a slap on the face? Am I misunderstanding this one too?

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

There are examples of them fleeing

Paul fled out of the hands of a govenor

2 Cr 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

2 Cr 11:33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands. (Josh 2:13 also)

Joseph warned in a dream to flee Herod

Matt 2:13 Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Why aren't they considered resisting evil?

 

[IndianaRob]

There are examples of them fleeing

Paul fled out of the hands of a govenor

2 Cr 11:32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

2 Cr 11:33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands. (Josh 2:13 also)

Joseph warned in a dream to flee Herod

Matt 2:13 Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.

Why aren't they considered resisting evil?

The word Jesus used in the KJV is resist not flee. Basically don’t oppose or fight back against evil with violence, retaliation, or revenge.

 

[Muna]

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Speaks of two cheeks due the priest here also

Deut 18:13 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.

When Jesus was struck with the palm of the hand before the high priest and questioned here it says

John 18:22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Wouldn't you consider Jesus as turning the other cheek also in his response to the first strike this way?

John 18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

Similarly here with Paul and the high priest

Acts 23:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Paul's response was

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

Acts 23:4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

Oops

Acts 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. (Ex 22:28)

 

[Muna]

The word Jesus used in the KJV is resist not flee. Basically don’t oppose or fight back against evil with violence, retaliation, or revenge.

I recall a conversation where a person gave a situation of being in the grocery store with your children in the cart and someone takes your cart with your children and that it would include lying down and letting that happen.

Would it be considered resisting evil to fight back for your children against such a person?

 

[IndianaRob]

Speaks of two cheeks due the priest here also

Deut 18:13 And this shall be the priest's due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.

When Jesus was struck with the palm of the hand before the high priest and questioned here it says

John 18:22 And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so?

Wouldn't you consider Jesus as turning the other cheek also in his response to the first strike this way?

John 18:23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?

Similarly here with Paul and the high priest

Acts 23:2 And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth.

Paul's response was

Acts 23:3 Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

Acts 23:4 And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?

Oops

Acts 23:5 Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. (Ex 22:28)

Yes I would consider Jesus as turning the other cheek also in his response to the first strike. The oops thing is pretty funny too .

I wonder if Peter said oops when the cock crew.

 

[IndianaRob]

I recall a conversation where a person gave a situation of being in the grocery store with your children in the cart and someone takes your cart with your children and that it would include lying down and letting that happen.

Would it be considered resisting evil to fight back for your children against such a person?

I don’t know that the Bible says to resist evil that is being carried out on others. Does it?

 

[Muna]

Yes I would consider Jesus as turning the other cheek also in his response to the first strike. The oops thing is pretty funny too .

I wonder if Peter said oops when the cock crew.

No, Peter wept bitterly over that (three times denied him) and he had been convinced he would die for Christ having this great confidence in his own ability to do that, so that must have really hurt.

Those priests sometimes let their positions go to their heads didn't they?

Deut 23:3 Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed: lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.

1 Cr 11:24 Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes (( save one )) .

Paul seems gracious there

 

[Muna]

I don’t know that the Bible says to resist evil that is being carried out on others. Does it?

Unless it would be considered their cup to drink too (as was the case with Christ).

See what I mean? We can do strange things with this

 

[IndianaRob]

Unless it would be considered their cup to drink too (as was the case with Christ).

See what I mean? We can do strange things with this

I know exactly what you mean.

 

[bdavidc]

President Trump calls out Democrats who are setting loose dangerous savages on our streets. He called out city leaders in Charlotte who defended a monster who killed a young lady on a train.

 

[mailmandan]

Law enforcement responding after 2 National Guard members shot near White House

Two National Guard members shot near White House, Afghan national suspect in custody: 'Act of evil'

Two West Virginia National Guard members were shot near the White House and Farragut Metro Station in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Police said one suspect is in custody.

www.foxnews.com

 

[GodsGrace]

Law enforcement responding after 2 National Guard members shot near White House

Two National Guard members shot near White House, Afghan national suspect in custody: 'Act of evil'

Two West Virginia National Guard members were shot near the White House and Farragut Metro Station in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Police said one suspect is in custody.

www.foxnews.com

I'm far from everything and we here can't really understand well what's going on.
Something terrible happened yesterday or the day before in the neighborhood I used to live in (in Queens).
Pretty horrifying. My house could be seen in the news video - I could have still been living there. A car was also burned and a neighbor beaten.

I attribute some of this to the uncivility of some parts of society -
and it's getting worse.

I've heard that the only reason civilization functions is because its members agree to be civil.
Scary thought. Ever read Lord of the Flies? Same theme.

 

[mailmandan]

UPDATE: Suspect in Shooting Ambush of National Guard Members IDENTIFIED as Afghan National Rahmanullah Lakanwal - ILLEGAL ALIEN who Entered US in 2021 Under Biden | The Gateway Pundit | by Jordan Conradson UPDATE: Suspect in Shooting Ambush of National Guard Members IDENTIFIED as Afghan National Rahmanullah Lakanwal - ILLEGAL ALIEN who Entered US in 2021 Under Biden | The Gateway Pundit | by Jordan Conradson

 

[David in NJ]

UPDATE: Suspect in Shooting Ambush of National Guard Members IDENTIFIED as Afghan National Rahmanullah Lakanwal - ILLEGAL ALIEN who Entered US in 2021 Under Biden | The Gateway Pundit | by Jordan Conradson UPDATE: Suspect in Shooting Ambush of National Guard Members IDENTIFIED as Afghan National Rahmanullah Lakanwal - ILLEGAL ALIEN who Entered US in 2021 Under Biden | The Gateway Pundit | by Jordan Conradson

CAN'T BE

Those Democratz would never allow such people in the USA...........................or MAYBE it was/is part of the PLAN