Should I buy a sword?

[David Lamb]

Yup. That’s my point about Acts. @Anchorite keeps bringing up what it does NOT say as if that should be compelling.

Yes, but when has Anchorite brought up non-existent verses in Acts? It seems quite legitimate to say that a certain teaching is not found in Acts. That's quite different from putting forward the notion of a Bible reference that does not exist.

 

[Davy]

Apostle Paul said that as much as it is possible within you, make peace with all men. With some men one is just not able to do this, which is why Paul said that.

A couple of false teachings by Christ's enemies has led many brethren away from keeping a weapon to protect themselves, their home, family, etc. The turn the other cheek example by Lord Jesus was in a situation where the disciples were spreading The Gospel; they were slapped for it. It was not a life or death situation like a robber or murderer coming at them, but a result of preaching The Gospel by those who hate Christ. In those cases, Jesus said offer the cheek also.

But Jesus' command for His disciples to go buy a sword is about the God-given right one has to protect themselves from robbers, thieves, murderers, invading armies, etc. Lord Jesus did not nail all... of God's laws upon His cross. This is why many of God's laws were actually preached by Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and Galatians 5. Paul said the law was made for the unholy and sinner. That has not changed.

Who wants... to change that though? We are shown who, in the Book of Daniel...

Dan 7:25
25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
KJV

One of the long-range Soviet Communist strategic points that ex-KGB defector to the U.S., Anatoliy Goliytsn noted in his book New Lies For Old, was when the Soviets had the plan since 1958 to infiltrate the western Churches and push pacifist and disarmament dogma.

Luckily today, many U.S. State Representatives have seen the writing on the wall, and have passed open carry of firearms for U.S. citizens in many States. Today those States are actually promoting... that U.S. citizens go buy a firearm and learn how to use it.

In 1903, the U.S. War Department created the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). It was designed to keep American citizens proficient with a rifle in case war broke out. American citizens were trained by the U.S. military.

I recall in the 1980's on Face The Nation, Sarah Brady was being interviewed, as her husband was paralyzed by a shooter attempt on the U.S. President, and she advocated against gun ownership. The show host asked her what she thought about the Florida crime rate going down after open firearm carry was passed there. She continually lied and said it didn't go down, but went up because of open carry. What open carry in Florida did was force the criminals to go after people they knew were NOT armed, so they waited to rob people coming out of airports that just got off an airplane, because they knew those people were not armed. Gun carry works. Too bad it is needed, but it does work.

 

[Wrangler]

Yes, but when has Anchorite brought up non-existent verses in Acts? It seems quite legitimate to say that a certain teaching is not found in Acts. That's quite different from putting forward the notion of a Bible reference that does not exist.

A teaching not found on Tuesday (or in Acts) doesn't mean there is not a teaching to be found in the whole body of God's word.

 

[Justified]

Yup. That’s my point about Acts. @Anchorite keeps bringing up what it does NOT say as if that should be compelling.

It is compelling though.

He’s committing the fallacy of Appeal to Ignorance, using the absence of evidence as evidence. I did the same thing to show the fallacy.

Once again, you are incorrect, on both counts. His is not an appeal to ignorance; it’s an argument from silence. And it is not a fallacious argument as it is one piece of evidence among several. There is not only not a single command for followers of Christ to use violent, physical means in defending against persecution, there is much to the contrary.

 

[NayborBear]

I still fail to see what connection the verses you have now quoted, 1 Peter 2:5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4, have with the question of Christians retaliating with physical weapons against those who oppose or persecute them. Being lively stones, a spiritual house, offering spiritual sacrifices, and the existence of AntiChrist say nothing about physical weapons.

Is because you haven't gotten "there".........yet.
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Jude 1:3
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

I can only bare witness of mine own experiences. I can try by posting verses that help "connect dots" to a larger more defined (how can I say) "picture?"
But? I can't "connect" them for you!
That's between You, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, and "'Yah-uh-'Vay."

But? I guess it comes down to an (how can I say) "aspect, or facet" of Love, where you love GOD "enough" to not only "die" for HIM? But, enough to "DEfend as well as CONtend" in "the Physical" AND Spiritual" against those who DO USE physical violence in their elimination of "The Faith!"
This? Is Loving your neighbor as "you" Love GOD!
By NOT allowing the adversary/ies to succeed!

 

[Wrangler]

I still fail to see what connection the verses you have now quoted, 1 Peter 2:5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4, have with the question of Christians retaliating with physical weapons against those who oppose or persecute them.

You don't have eyes to see.

I guess it comes down to an (how can I say) "aspect, or facet" of Love, where you love GOD "enough" to not only "die" for HIM? But, enough to "DEfend as well as CONtend" in "the Physical" AND Spiritual" against those who DO USE physical violence in their elimination of "The Faith!"
This? Is Loving your neighbor as "you" Love GOD!

Beautifully expressed. The overly spiritualized live their faith AS IF non-violence is the end but the rest of the story from Christ's 2nd Coming is violently imposing justice, ruling with an iron rod and annihilating's even believers in the Lake of Fire, the 2nd Death as the ultimate solution to the problem of evil. Then after that, we will have divine peace, peace as God intended - not before the violence. Violence is the price to be paid for justice - in the here and now AND in the hereafter. This point is so fully expressed that our Lord will resurrect people from the dead just so he can violently annihilate them in the Lake of Fire. That's a commitment to violence not expressed by over-spiritualized Christians today.

 

[David Lamb]

A teaching not found on Tuesday (or in Acts) doesn't mean there is not a teaching to be found in the whole body of God's word.

I am sorry, but I see no reason for "inventing" a spurious Acts verse. If I remember correctly, Anchorite's point was that we don't read in Acts (by which I assume he meant the verses that actually are in Acts) of any Christians retaliating with physical violence or weapons when they were persecuted. Acts is the book in which we read most about instances of persecution. (I am sure Anchorite will correct me if I have misrepresented him- I hope I haven't.)

 

[Gray_Joy]

I think what some choose to ignore in a zeal to promote pacifism,even unto death,is the passage where Jesus commanded his Disciples to arm themselves with swords.
The most powerful personal weapon of its time.

The Disciples were to ignore the fact they were armed by God for a reason known to God? When God told them to arm themselves?

Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Self defense of family and home was taught also.

Mark 3:27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil.


If we are to love our neighbor as ourself,some would insist we are to stand idle if we witness someone killing our neighbor before our eyes.

Who could do that? When God commands us to defend the vulnerable.


Proverbs 24:11-12: This is the most direct mandate for physical intervention: "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?"

Psalm 82:3-4: A definitive call to protect those who cannot protect themselves: "Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

 

[Wrangler]

I am sorry, but I see no reason for "inventing" a spurious Acts verse.

Don’t have eyes to see. I didn’t invent a verse in Acts.

 

[Wrangler]

If I remember correctly, Anchorite's point was

An Appeal to Ignorance, treating the lack of evidence as evidence.

 

[Gray_Joy]

An Appeal to Ignorance, treating the lack of evidence as evidence.

I'm surprised to read a label for such things.
I just recently encountered the same thing here.

 

[Wrangler]

I think what some choose to ignore in a zeal to promote pacifism,even unto death,is the passage where Jesus commanded his Disciples to arm themselves with swords.

Being overly-spiritualized, they suppose He didn’t mean it. He meant something metaphorical, not literal.

 

[Wrangler]

I'm surprised to read a label for such things.
I just recently encountered the same thing here.

Logic is a powerful ally. Unlike morality, logic doesn’t require context, only the absence of word play. For instance, saying ”Tyson is the baddest boxer on the planet” means the opposite; he’s the best.

Some suppose God operates outside of logic so doctrine can be ‘supported.’ That is, doctrine can only be supported by rejecting logic and embracing dualism. Logic is the art of the non-contradictory identification of truth, I.e. mutual exclusivity. If Jesus is in the house, it necessarily means he is not out of the house, etc. Duality allows Jesus is 100% in the house AND 100% outside the house at the same time.

 

[Justified]

I'm surprised to read a label for such things.
I just recently encountered the same thing here.

You shouldn’t be surprised; he constantly makes such erroneous allegations. As I pointed out to him, it isn’t an appeal to ignorance. He continually posts like he understands logic and critical thinking, but he doesn’t.

 

[Justified]

I think what some choose to ignore in a zeal to promote pacifism,even unto death,is the passage where Jesus commanded his Disciples to arm themselves with swords.
The most powerful personal weapon of its time.

The Disciples were to ignore the fact they were armed by God for a reason known to God? When God told them to arm themselves?

Luke 22:36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.

Self defense of family and home was taught also.

Mark 3:27 But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man. Then indeed he may plunder his house.

Luke 11:21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe; 22 but when one stronger than he attacks him and overcomes him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his spoil.


If we are to love our neighbor as ourself,some would insist we are to stand idle if we witness someone killing our neighbor before our eyes.

Who could do that? When God commands us to defend the vulnerable.


Proverbs 24:11-12: This is the most direct mandate for physical intervention: "Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter. If you say, 'But we knew nothing about this,' does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?"

Psalm 82:3-4: A definitive call to protect those who cannot protect themselves: "Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

Care to respond to my previous post, HERE, to you regarding your misuse of Scripture, which you then do again above? Proof-texting and divorcing verses from their context almost always lead to error.

 

[Justified]

Logic is a powerful ally. Unlike morality, logic doesn’t require context, only the absence of word play. For instance, saying ”Tyson is the baddest boxer on the planet” means the opposite; he’s the best.

Some suppose God operates outside of logic so doctrine can be ‘supported.’ That is, doctrine can only be supported by rejecting logic and embracing dualism. Logic is the art of the non-contradictory identification of truth, I.e. mutual exclusivity. If Jesus is in the house, it necessarily means he is not out of the house, etc. Duality allows Jesus is 100% in the house AND 100% outside the house at the same time.

Except that you’re almost always wrong when you appeal to logic.

 

[Gray_Joy]

Retaliating with physical violence would seem to contradict Jesus' teaching on vengeance.
However, most Christians would respond with physical violence if they could protect a vulnerable person under attack.
So it seems we need to find a balance between these two responses.

This is where we need to rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If it is a situation where we would feel comfortable seeing a law enforcement officer using physical violence to subdue a perpetrator, then I would feel comfortable about anyone in the vicinity taking action.

The first responder to the shooters in the Bondi Beach massacre last year here in Australia was a man who wrestled a rifle away from one of the gunmen before police arrived. I have only admiration for his actions.

I would suggest you consider that self defense is not vengeance.

 

[Gray_Joy]

Being overly-spiritualized, they suppose He didn’t mean it. He meant something metaphorical, not literal.

I've read some say that,yes.

What can't be overcome is that Jesus told his Disciples to buy swords.
And it wasn't metaphor that cleaved the ear from the head of a temple guard in Gethsemane.

So,we know the Disciples were armed by command of the same God that armed and led the Hebrews to establish God's kingdom of Israel on Earth.

Yes,context is important in reading the scriptures.

However,I think when it is proposed it is metaphor when we read Luke 11: 21, for example, that argument fails.

Jesus armed his Disciples. Likely because once Jesus returned to Heaven his Apostles would need swords while carrying out his great commission.
Basic self defense when bandits were an issue in traveling. Such as on the road to Jericho
And a sword would be necessary as well for utility.

Much has been said to promote the idea Jesus insisted on passive docility as believers.
But,if we are Christ like and Christ is God, then passive docility is not a reflection of who God is.

Even Jesus said,he did not come to bring peace. But a sword.
That is metaphor of course. But Jesus spoke truth in that he did not bring peace.
He shook up everything the Pharisees thought they knew about God and his Tanakh.