Should I buy a sword?

[Wrangler]

Sorry, entirely my mistake. You "invented" a verse in Romans., Romans 6:24, when there are only 23 verses in Romans 6. I apologise for the error.

You apologize for the smaller error while holding fast to the bigger error; the lack of evidence is not evidence. Supposing so is an error in reasoning of a type that is so well known since ancient times, it has a name, Appeal to Ignorance. Why do you hold on to this error in reasoning?

 

[David Lamb]

You apologize for the smaller error while holding fast to the bigger error; the lack of evidence is not evidence. Supposing so is an error in reasoning of a type that is so well known since ancient times, it has a name, Appeal to Ignorance. Why do you hold on to this error in reasoning?

My apology was nonetheless sincere. Sorry that you have taken it as me holding fast to a greater error. I don't understand what that greater error is supposed to be. I haven't appealed to ignorance. What greater error do you mean, and where have I appealed to ignorance?

 

[Wrangler]

My apology was nonetheless sincere. Sorry that you have taken it as me holding fast to a greater error. I don't understand what that greater error is supposed to be. I haven't appealed to ignorance. What greater error do you mean, and where have I appealed to ignorance?

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

 

[David Lamb]

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

I apologised over what I saw was a blatant error of fact on my part. I had said that you "invented" a verse in Acts, whereas in fact it was Romans. When I apologised, I wasn't intending to get into a discussion about what other things, in your view, I ought to apologise for. I must say I find your reaction to an apology unusual. I will leave the matter there. It is of course entirely up to you whether or not you accept my apology.

 

[Justified]

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

The error in reasoning is all on your part. Based on the number of times I have seen you incorrectly refer to claims of fallacious arguments, I suspect it’s the Dunning-Kruger effect. Even here you don’t accept correction for claiming that someone is fallaciously making an appeal to ignorance when it is an argument from silence, and not a fallacious one at that. Please, in all seriousness, for your sake, take a formal class on logic and critical thinking or read some good books on the subject.

 

[NayborBear]

You apologized over a mere matter of fact while holding onto an error in reasoning. If you don’t realize that you’re doing that, I feel sorry for you.

I suggest you re-read what was already written on the matter.

There's an old saying that goes: "You can LEAD a horse to water?" "But, ya can't make him DRINK it!"

I can say with a little more than "relative certainty" that there's going to be whole LOT of "small people emanating a whole lotta shades of gray (when we are all changed)" that have been lulled into believing they'll be teaching others in their "reign with Christ"! When it is THEY who will be the ones being taught!
When Messiah tells 'em: "That BAD 'ol DEVIL and his cronies are GONE!" "Y'all can come out of hiding now!"

 

[Gray_Joy]

Who God is, is a warrior.Ex 15:3

NLT The LORD is a warrior; Yahweh is his name!​

REV Yahweh is a man of war; Yahweh is his name.​

Amazing how that is overlooked by advocates of docility and pacifism.

I think the formation of the Canon and the early church fathers role in this is worthy of consideration as well.

Thinking Christians should never resort to violence under any circumstance because God says so does not comport with God's teachings and behavior in the Old Testament.

Jesus was establishing a spiritual kingdom on Earth with his gospel and the great commission given to his Apostles. Who were formerly commanded to buy swords.

They were going to face challenges as they set out on their mission.
If all new converts were killed by pagans opposed to the gospel,how successful would they have been?

And we know pagans were opposed because many of the Apostles were martyred.

It was illegal to profess Christ in Rome until Constantine lifted the ban.

And also,I think what is often overlooked is that Jesus is the Messiah of the prophecies in the Tanakh.
That Messiah,which is Jesus,is not passive.

The early church fathers influence on the canon is worth considering too.

And let's not forget the bloody horror of the Christian crusades.

This OP issue will drag on and on if we let it. No one will budge an inch from their respective point of view.

But there is one thing to note. Consistency,sincerity, and genuine faith character.
If someone insists pacifism is absolute. And then resorts to attack language, ad hominems,to further their point.

 

[markalan]

This OP issue will drag on and on if we let it. No one will budge an inch from their respective point of view.

I have found the discussion helpful in trying to identify when a physical response, even to the point of killing, is acceptable according to correct Biblical teaching.

 

[Lambano]

I've told this story before, and taken grief from both sides.

I had an old pastor who was a much younger pastor during the Vietnam war. He had a friend who was an Army recruiter. The two met over coffee.

"Preacher, why can't you Christians make up your minds?"

"What do you mean, Bill?"

"Half your young people are protesting in front of my office. The other half are inside enlisting. What do you guys REALLY believe?"

"Well Bill, God calls some to be peacemakers. And God calls some to protect those who cannot protect themselves."

I've always remembered that story. What does God call ME to be?

 

[NayborBear]

I've told this story before, and taken grief from both sides.

I had an old pastor who was a much younger pastor during the Vietnam war. He had a friend who was an Army recruiter. The two met over coffee.

"Preacher, why can't you Christians make up your minds?"

"What do you mean, Bill?"

"Half your young people are protesting in front of my office. The other half are inside enlisting. What do you guys REALLY believe?"

"Well Bill, God calls some to be peacemakers. And God calls some to protect those who cannot protect themselves."

I've always remembered that story. What does God call ME to be?

I believe what more than several posters on this thread and other threads as well, are doing or striving in doing (least as far as the WHY I'm posting) is (how can I say) getting the "word" out, because there's people that can and do become "peer pressured" that ANY physical violence towards any adversary, is NOT what Jesus nor the apostles would, or even SHOULD do!
IOW? If EVERYONE is NOT a "mouth?"
They are NOT of the body of Christ! PEROID!

So what I strive in doing, which really REALLY "offends" some of these people?
Is go right ON offending 'em!
But? Shall fight to the death for their "right to be wrong!"
Yeah? Even against those who would want them exterminated!
(edited a few minutes later)
Ezekiel 13:
22 Because with lies ye have made the heart of the righteous sad, whom I have not made sad; and strengthened the hands of the wicked, that he should not return from his wicked way, by promising him life:

 

[Wrangler]

This OP issue will drag on and on if we let it. No one will budge an inch from their respective point of view.

A few years ago I read a book Atheism on Trail. The author brought up ancient arguments on both sides. The human condition is such that ALL moral issues have to be re-visited by each generation.

Some like to flatter themselves that capital-S sheds light on the truth. Fact is, there are different kinds of truth. Science answers the question of HOW; ethics answers the question of WHY. They are fundamentally different questions and will forever be.

Science and technology may reduce the age at which a fetus is viable in being removed from the womb and improve weapons of war and personal defense. Compared to Jesus’ day, we have more options, both lethal and non-lethal but this doesn’t solve the moral question. The arguments forever remain. This is why I often bring up brushing one’s teeth; the technology may not have existed in Biblical times but that doesn’t mean Biblical, timeless principles cannot be brought to bear on the question of WHAT TO DO & WHY.

 

[Gray_Joy]

A few years ago I read a book Atheism on Trail. The author brought up ancient arguments on both sides. The human condition is such that ALL moral issues have to be re-visited by each generation.

Some like to flatter themselves that capital-S sheds light on the truth. Fact is, there are different kinds of truth. Science answers the question of HOW; ethics answers the question of WHY. They are fundamentally different questions and will forever be.

Science and technology may reduce the age at which a fetus is viable in being removed from the womb and improve weapons of war and personal defense. Compared to Jesus’ day, we have more options, both lethal and non-lethal but this doesn’t solve the moral question. The arguments forever remain. This is why I often bring up brushing one’s teeth; the technology may not have existed in Biblical times but that doesn’t mean Biblical, timeless principles cannot be brought to bear on the question of WHAT TO DO & WHY.

Great post.

For me, the influence of the political atmosphere at the time during the canonization process is a consideration too.

The influence brought by political leaders in the secular and ecclesiastical, so called church fathers, upon the final product that is today's Bible,whatever version,and estimated at over 900 in English alone.

All worthy of consideration when we encounter seeming contradictions in the scriptures.
God is perfect.Man is not.

God is consistent in his message and all knowing. If we accept God is Omniscient,all knowing, and eternal,the same yesterday,today and forever.

For me,God was a war God in the Old testimony because he tells us this. He created his kingdom on Earth through violent acquisition.
God did not turn the other cheek,love his enemies,not resist evil people.
All while his spiritual kingdom was innate in that campaign too.

So for me, the idea God decided all that he'd made manifest from the beginning was to now be disregarded in the name of indifference to the violence wrought by the armies,individuals, in service to the enemy, does not comport with the nature of God or his recorded first history.

To each their own.

This follower of the way of Christ will defend her house and home and loved ones. She will protect and defend innocents under attack. The elderly.
She will feed them,clothe them,and fight to save them from those who think to destroy those unable to fight for themselves.

What I shall never do is stand idle in the face of evil. Because that's not what the Gospel does.
The Gospel leads us from the darkness into the light. If I was suppose to remain indifferent to the fallen behavior of darkness, I wouldn't have been called out of it so that I could later see it for myself. And do my best to save someone under physical threat from it.

To each their own.

God won't damn me for stopping a child predator from kidnapping a baby. Or, throwing to the ground someone just about to smash an old lady in the back of the head with a rock,while his buddy recorded it for their fun.

If I'm wrong,if he goes damn me for that,I'd have been better off as an agnostic.

But,that's not going to happen. Because God first told us who he is. And that isn't the God who would want a baby to be kidnapped. Or an old woman's skull to be caved in.

That's the thing about the Biblical eisegesis hyper passivity doctrine.
That argument insists that's exactly what God wants.

That baby,child,not anyone near,should not resist that evil that wants to take them.
That old lady who is on the ground with part of her skull caved in should turn her head so to receive the next blow.

To each their own.

Dang,that's a long post.
Sorry.

 

[markalan]

God won't damn me for stopping a child predator from kidnapping a baby. Or, throwing to the ground someone just about to smash an old lady in the back of the head with a rock,while his buddy recorded it for their fun.

In fact, if one did not try to intervene in such circumstances, they would be breaking God's laws.
Would I pull out a gun and shoot the perpetrator ... no.

If I were a school teacher and saw someone shooting children, I would fire to kill.

We would all have to make a split second decision, not based on vengeance but on doing the least harm, while at the same time protecting the vulnerable.

Discussion in this thread has included whether I would shoot to kill to protect myself? My answer is no ... but that may be because I am an old man and quite looking forward to going to heaven

And finally, what does all this say about owning a "sword" (gun) ? My response is ... do whatever you feel is right for you. It is not a sin to own or carry a gun ... it is only a sin if the weapon is used irresponsibly.

 

[Taken]

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.

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.

Why did Jesus instruct His disciples to buy a sword?
How should we apply this today?

I would say…
First line of defense…(script)
Ie. (play on words)
s-word…ie. Spiritual-WORD.
(May fall on deaf ears)

Insurance…Preparedness…
“sword”… metal defense object.

One speech… two meanings…
Spiritually / Carnally

Glory to God,
Taken


Physical

 

[Wrangler]

I would say…
First line of defense…(script)
Ie. (play on words)
s-word…ie. Spiritual-WORD.
(May fall on deaf ears)

Extreme rationalization there.

The overly spiritualized cannot conceive of a Bible verse having ONLY soulful applications. Jesus didn’t make spiritual wine but carnal, fleshy, literal, physical wine. Just because something is blessed doesn’t make it NOT carnal, not soulful.

 

[Taken]

Extreme rationalization there.

The overly spiritualized cannot conceive of a Bible verse having ONLY soulful applications. Jesus didn’t make spiritual wine but carnal, fleshy, literal, physical wine. Just because something is blessed doesn’t make it NOT carnal, not soulful.

I happen to like the “play on words”…
I also like “one speech” delivered, that will be understood, completely different by believers and non believers…

Ex.

God…Good
Son Light…Sun Light
Evil- reversed Live
D+evil…Devil
Sword…Spiritual Word.

One speech…/ story, lesson, parable, whatever called, spoken by Jesus…
* Believer Will trust to believe every word, regardless what the speech is called…
Because Jesus can Not Lie.
* Non-Believer will reject believing, calling it “a made-up” / “untrue”…
Story, Lesson, Parable.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Wrangler]

I happen to like the “play on words”…

I happen to passionately hate “play on words” as it epitomizes eisegesis, reading into text what is not there in the original language. Did Jesus spiritually die or only carnally die?

 

[Taken]

I happen to passionately hate “play on words” as it epitomizes eisegesis, reading into text what is not there in the original language. Did Jesus spiritually die or only carnally die?

Yeah for FREEWILL.
What you hate, I like.

The examples I gave absolutely ARE in the text.

Did Jesus spiritually die or only carnally die?

Jesus’ soul did NOT die.
Jesus’ spirit did NOT die.
Jesus’ “prepared” ( by God ), Body Did die, yet did NOT, decompose/ rot,(go to dust, nor came from dust)… that Body Returned to heaven from whence it came.

 

[Gray_Joy]

In fact, if one did not try to intervene in such circumstances, they would be breaking God's laws.
Would I pull out a gun and shoot the perpetrator ... no.

If I were a school teacher and saw someone shooting children, I would fire to kill.

We would all have to make a split second decision, not based on vengeance but on doing the least harm, while at the same time protecting the vulnerable.

Discussion in this thread has included whether I would shoot to kill to protect myself? My answer is no ... but that may be because I am an old man and quite looking forward to going to heaven

And finally, what does all this say about owning a "sword" (gun) ? My response is ... do whatever you feel is right for you. It is not a sin to own or carry a gun ... it is only a sin if the weapon is used irresponsibly.

It isn't breaking God's laws to defend those under attack by evil.

If we were to witness such and do nothing,we would be worse than an unbeliever.

Jesus stopped men of the temple from stoning Mary to death under the charge of adultery.
Those men understood the law of sin.

Evil today that acts out doesn't. It is committed to sin.

And the command of God is,thou shall not murder.
Not,thou shalt not kill.

 

[Wrangler]

And the command of God is,thou shall not murder.
Not,thou shalt not kill.

Those who are over-spiritualized and reject Christ's command to be armed, ready to kill if need be, don't embrace discernment. Ecclesiastes has it right; there is a time for peace and a time for war. Obviously, Christ did not tell his friends and brothers who he loved to arm themselves to stop his work on the cross! There is submitting to lawful authority of Rome and there is defending oneself against jealous priests who'll frame people, abuse their power, etc, who have no real authority to arrest people outside the temple. That's why those who arrested Jesus are called "Temple Guards."

1 Chronicles 26 CEV
The Temple Guards Are Assigned Their Duties

26 The temple guards were also divided into groups according to clans.

12 The guards were divided into groups, according to their family leaders, and they were assigned duties at the temple, just like the other Levites. 13 Each group, no matter how large or small, was assigned a gate to guard, and they let the LORD show them what he wanted done.

John 18:3 NLT
3 The leading priests and Pharisees had given Judas a contingent of Roman soldiers and Temple guards to accompany him.