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.

 

[NayborBear]

I reject the idea that fulfilling prophecy is the only reason; that there was no practical reason to arm oneself.

I agree! Yet? Tis one of several "plausible deniability EXCUSES" pacifistic (ahem) "practitioners" of the Christian faith use!
And SOME? To the "NNNTH degree!"

 

[markalan]

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.

My intention in the OP was to discuss how the "sword" applies today in various situations.

I agree that Jesus was not telling His disciples to buy a sword for self protection.

The issue of the police and the military using weapons is not questioned by most Christians.

It is the third situation that leaves me still unsure of what my response should be. That situation is whether carrying a gun can save the lives of others.

The Bondi Beach massacre in Australia last year, when 15 people were killed, was shocking as mass shootings are uncommon here. The only person who returned fire (before police arrived) was a nearby citizen who very bravely wrestled the rifle away from one of the shooters.
.
Australian law makes it illegal for a citizen to carry a gun in public, but as mass killings become more common, it is possible that law may be reconsidered. As a Christian I need to find a Biblical answer for that third situation.

 

[David Lamb]

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.

I really don't see what the matters of almighty God reigning from everlasting to everlasting, or of the Lord saying to David's Lord (Matthew 22:41-46 makes clear that this refers to Jesus Christ) have to do with the matter of whether Christians under persecution are to retaliate with physical weapons. It certainly doesn't contradict the verses from 1 Peter 2 that I mentioned, about Jesus, who when He was reviled, did not retaliate, and saying He is the Christian's example.

I fully agree with John 14:6 which you quoted.

I am not sure what your opening question means. As it stands, there seems to be a word or two missing somewhere: "As far as you are concerned David on the side of Christ you seem to be on?" Are you asking me if I am on Christ's side? If so, definitely yes.

 

[Wrangler]

I agree that Jesus was not telling His disciples to buy a sword for self protection ... It is the third situation that leaves me still unsure of what my response should be. That situation is whether carrying a gun can save the lives of others.

Not protection for self but others? The apparent self hate shown by some in this thread is appalling. Christ did not die just for others; he died for you. You are loved by God (not just others). The idea that anyone would tell another to be armed for reasons other than primarily self protection is absurd on its face!

Have you ever considered that you can't save the lives of others if you are dead? The airplane industry has it right; secure your own protection before assisting others.

Fatal Empathy: Are you Guilty Of?

Just heard of this idea last week and it was used in this vid of potential jurors who said they could not bring themselves to find the murderer guilty OR punish him. For a great and short 5-minute Prager U background, also check out this vid. So, the questions are: What do you think of the...

www.christianityboard.com

 

[markalan]

Not protection for self but others? The apparent self hate shown by some in this thread is appalling. Christ did not die just for others; he died for you. You are loved by God (not just others). The idea that anyone would tell another to be armed for reasons other than primarily self protection is absurd on its face!

I have not seen any self hate in this thread.

Would you go as far as forming armed Christian militias to resist persecution by the government ... persecution which is happening in some countries today.

It has been suggested that all teachers could be armed ... that is primarily for the protection of others ... I do not see that as absurd.

 

[Wrangler]

It has been suggested that all teachers could be armed ... that is primarily for the protection of others ... I do not see that as absurd.

Good but there you go again with the self hate. Teachers lives are not less important than the students they protect.

Would you go as far as forming armed Christian militias to resist persecution by the government ... persecution which is happening in some countries today.

Of course, I would not oppose it. What other persecution do you tacitly advocate for; race, sex, tribe?

I have not seen any self hate in this thread.

Not all with eye see. What is you aversion to the right to life, that one may not act to defend their own life?

 

[markalan]

Of course, I would not oppose it. What other persecution do you tacitly advocate for; race, sex, tribe?

Paul was beaten, imprisoned, stoned and eventually executed.
Can you show me where Paul reacted violently, or encouraged others to react violently?
Paul used the legal system but never encouraged violence. Was it self hate?

 

[Wrangler]

Of course, I would not oppose it. What other persecution do you tacitly advocate for; race, sex, tribe?

Paul was beaten, imprisoned, stoned and eventually executed.

Is Paul your Lord and Savior? Not an answer to my question. Reveals that you know your position cannot hold up to scrutiny. If Paul jumped off a bridge, would you? John the Baptist did not drink alcohol but Jesus did. Where not all supposed to go down the same path.

Worst of all, you continue to take Scripture out of context, comparing one man in a Pagan society to a Christian nation. That Paul was beaten doesn't detract from Christ telling us to buy a sword.