Should I buy a sword?

[David Lamb]

That verse? Mat 26:54 you posted? Should have answered your concerns about "being armed!"
Prophecy was? At THAT time? Being FULFILLED!
Peter DIDN'T know!
Jesus? However DID!
Now? How in "Heaven's Name" verse 52 became the "GLOBAL ANTHEM" for "Pacifistic Christians EVERYWHERE?"
Is merely a "testament and witness" of how the term/emotion/feeling/s of "LOVE" has been (how can I say) "thrown into the blender" of misguided interpretation, then vexated by seduction, and watered down for itchy ears, REDEFINED to the POINT where the emotion of "RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION", of "ANY KIND collectively!" of Christ's Church is STRICTLY FORBIDDEN!
Well? That may be a little TOO harsh though. Maybe EXTREMELY FROWNED upon?
At LEAST THAT "aspect" of Love anyway!
To which? The "Governments" of most democratic nations with "Judaeo/Christian Values" were ALL TOO HAPPY in (how can I say) "Relinquishing or RELIEVING Christ's Church" from what SHOULD have been "outward EXPRESSIONS" of Righteous Indignation, ACCORDING TO "Judaeo/Christian Values and Morals, and Justice" to THEIR SECULAR definitions of how, when and where THEIR form of "justice (UNrighteous Indignation)" is to be outwardly "MISAPPLIED!
Which brings to mind that old old Biblical record, of How GOD "yielded" to the People's cries of DEMANDING a "Man King" to rule over them when Samuel brought this before HIM!
DESPITE the "Warnings" from GOD describing just what was going to happen with this decision!
Just goes to show ya? No matter how much things CHANGE?
People? DON'T!
Sad! Ain't it?

I am finding that a problem with this thread is that we seem to be discussing two different things as if they were the same thing: whether
Christians are commanded to retaliate physically when they are persecuted for being Christians, and whether nations should be involved in wars. I thought that this thread was about the first of those. I have said, and maintain, that Christians are taught over and over again in the Bible that they are not called upon to retaliate when they are persecuted. For example:

(1Pe 2:21) For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
(1Pe 2:22) "WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH";
(1Pe 2:23) who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

It is extremely difficult to continue a discussion if we are not discussing the same thing. At least, it seems that way to me.

 

[Wrangler]

I am finding that a problem with this thread is that we seem to be discussing two different things as if they were the same thing: whether
Christians are commanded to retaliate physically when they are persecuted for being Christians, and whether nations should be involved in wars.

Perhaps even a third axis of rotation; do Christian’s have the right to defend themselves, generally, and not just specifically in response to persecution.

 

[David Lamb]

Perhaps even a third axis of rotation; do Christian’s have the right to defend themselves, generally, and not just specifically in response to persecution.

If that is what you are discussing, it goes a long way to explaining why we keep disagreeing. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[NayborBear]

I am finding that a problem with this thread is that we seem to be discussing two different things as if they were the same thing: whether
Christians are commanded to retaliate physically when they are persecuted for being Christians, and whether nations should be involved in wars. I thought that this thread was about the first of those. I have said, and maintain, that Christians are taught over and over again in the Bible that they are not called upon to retaliate when they are persecuted. For example:

(1Pe 2:21) For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps:
(1Pe 2:22) "WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH";
(1Pe 2:23) who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;

It is extremely difficult to continue a discussion if we are not discussing the same thing. At least, it seems that way to me.

As far as you are concerned David on the side of Christ you seem to be on? Your answer sounds like a RESOUNDING NO!

However, on "THIS" side of GOD?: (aka-HE who REIGNS from Everlasting TO Everlasting)
Psalms 110:
The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, UNTIL I MAKE THINE ENEMIES THEY FOOTSTOOL.

Tis a horse of a "different" color! If you don't mind my use of "cliches."
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, but BY ME.

 

[Anchorite]

If that is what you are discussing, it goes a long way to explaining why we keep disagreeing. Thanks for the explanation.

I do not think so.

The violence advocates want to be able to kill in war, Crusades, conquering Islam, defending the kingdom of God, police actions, self-defense, and retaliation.

They want to carry a gun or other weapon “just in case a crazed shooter starts a killing spree” or however they justify putting their faith in weapons.

They do not understand martyrs or the pacifism of Jesus.

No matter how often you explain what “buy a sword” really means, they persist in thinking Jesus authorized them to arm themselves and kill their enemies.

 

[Wrangler]

If that is what you are discussing, it goes a long way to explaining why we keep disagreeing. Thanks for the explanation.

I think it was @PS95 who talked about being a martyr for Christ and I referenced a young lady at Columbine who was given the choice deny Christ or die. I hope I have her courage.

Having said that, I don't believe that is the crux of Christ's command to buy a sword but general defense of the Apostles lives in his absence.

Another asserted it fulfilled prophecy and I don't doubt it. However, I reject the idea that fulfilling prophecy is the only reason; that there was no practical reason to arm oneself.

 

[PS95]

I do not think so.

The violence advocates want to be able to kill in war, Crusades, conquering Islam, defending the kingdom of God, police actions, self-defense, and retaliation.

They want to carry a gun or other weapon “just in case a crazed shooter starts a killing spree” or however they justify putting their faith in weapons.

They do not understand martyrs or the pacifism of Jesus.

This greatly offends me. I'm not a violent person and I have stated over and over that I would never shoot someone who wasn't shooting others first. I would also hand in my gun if laws changed. I have not advocated for any war, and I specifically stated that we should want to die as martyrs to the faith.
My faith is not in any weapon. You are being obtuse here imho.
I think it's perfectly noble to want to help when a serious crime is being committed for the sake of the innocent. I don't mean help by hiding and calling 911 while people are being slaughtered. Your LAW opposes being merciful to others in harms way- God's laws do not.

For what it's worth, I doubt and hope I will never face a mass shooter scenario, and I don't work in a school. But I have respect for any law abiding teacher, janitor, or principal who is armed in order to protect the children from harm.