The Insanity of the "right" to have guns!

[Grailhunter]

If it were not for the English there would be no America

Just sayin'

The English government did not land here first....the Puritans came here to escape religious persecution from King James and King Charles. And eventually the Brits tried to take over and we kicked them out. Do not get me wrong I like Europeans.

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

We have this argument going on over on this side of the pond,
Women who advocate for free choice rather than pro-life tell men all the time,
your not a woman so you have no say in a woman's rights to choose.

You say you live in England? And this convo is about Americas rights to bear arms...
comprende?

it is called living in a FREE world!

 

[ByGraceThroughFaith]

The English government did not land here first....the Puritans came here to escape religious persecution from King James and King Charles. And eventually the Brits tried to take over and we kicked them out. Do not get me wrong I like Europeans.

hahaha!!!

The Puritans are ENGLISH, and they founded America! get your facts right!

 

[Ziggy]

 

[BarneyFife]

If it were not for the English there would be no America

Just sayin'

My dad can beat your dad up.

 

[Enoch111]

If it were not for the English there would be no America

The Colonists did not regard themselves as "English" since the king of England did not regard them as full citizens of England, As a matter of fact the American colonists fought the English and sent them packing. As to America (the geographical area which is now America) it existed long before any Colonists came on the scene. Had American governments seriously made an effort to negotiate with the natives, things might have turned out differently.

 

[FHII]

Again, my point is not moot. Your view here is illogical because we learn that the main reason for them having the two words was to fulfill prophecy and that when Peter did use one of these swords two swords (and not swords for each of them), Peter was rebuked in 4 ways by the Lord Jesus Christ for using his sword in violent self defense. After Jesus rebuked Peter, we don’t read anywhere later in the New Testament of the disciples even having swords let alone using them in violent self defense. So this is why your point in return is untenable when looking at the Bible. You have no biblical case for New Testament violent self defense. On the contrary, Jesus and the apostles taught Non-Violence (While living out one’s faith).

It is a moot point because I am not debating whether Jesus taught non violence. He did. As I have stated several times, I am concerned with the statement made in the OP:

These MASS murders, and MANY more that we see on a regular basis, shows that it is both UNBIBLICAL and UNCHRISTIAN for anyone, especially if the are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, to own any form of weapon!

Not just guns; weapons! I haveclearly shown that Jesus told the disciples to buy swords, and some of them already had them. Yes, Jesus taught non violence. Yes he rebuked Peter. I am not debating that, which makes it a moot point.

Your argument is a misconnect. This is not the point I was making. N

Well you get to have your point a d I get to have mine!

Nowhere did I say that the disciples did not have swords when Judas and the others came to arrest Jesus

That's right, you didn't say that at all and I never said you did. Here is what you said:

"#2. When we read the New Testament: We learn that the apostles did not carry swords in the New Testament as per the instruction of Luke 22:36. We read nothing about the disciples carrying swords or using swords to kill or harm others in their own self defense"

My point is that we do!

Again, the point of the disciples having the swords was for Jesus to fulfill the prophecy in being numbered with the transgressors.

Let's end this error right now. Here is the verse in question:

Luke 22:36-37 KJV
one. [37] For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished v in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.

Here is the prophecy:
Isaiah 53:12 KJV
Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Is it your claim that Peter using his sword made him the transgressor or that the swords symbolized the transgressors? Well here is the fulfilling of the prophecy:

Mark 15:27-28 KJV
And with him they crucify two thieves; r the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. [28] And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

Ste swords had nothing to do with it. Swords are not transgressors, Peter wasn't one of them and in no way do swords come into this prophecy.

We don’t see anywhere else in the New Testament of the disciples using swords let alone using them for violent self defense reasons

It simply isn't spoken of. It also never says that they got rid of the swords which the Bible says they did own. As for your examples, they are very short sighted and cannot be taken seriously.

t’s not a stupid question. Jesus did not tell them to buy a gun because we know Jesus did not tell them to do so

It's is stupid. Jesus did not tell them to buy guns because they did not exist back then. The sword was the cutting-edge (no pun intended) weapon of the day.

merely said this because your view is not in any way biblical

What? That Jesus told them to buy swords? That's not biblical?

As for Jesus "beating". I did mispeak. The Bible says he cast them out or drove them out. He did have a whip though. What was that for?

 

[Cristo Rei]

LEARN

You know who these people are?
The ones who control everything.
Everything.
Have you heard of who controls the world?
Everything you eat, where, live, raise your children, education, technology, medical, pharmaceuticals.. everything..
And when they come, and they will, if you don't want to be turned into a hybrid, you better be prepared to defend yourself.
And don't reply without watching the videos I don't post them for my benefit. I already know.

Some people are so deceived that they will never accept reality even if it's shown to them.

First they rejected the great reset now they say it will never happen while it's happening right in front of us. They are delusional

I find it's not worth engaging such people. They are fooled and will fight hard to support the evil ones plans...

 

[Naomanos]

Some people are so deceived that they will never accept reality even if it's shown to them.

I find it's not worth engaging such people. They are fooled and will fight hard to support the evil ones plans...

The same could be said of those who post such videos and those who believe them. /shrug

We can keep going back and forth, or we can just move on. What would you like to do?

 

[Cristo Rei]

Evil is here in the form of tyranny
And unfortunately many foolish people are abetting it

 

[JohnPaul]

hahaha!!!

The Puritans are ENGLISH, and they founded America! get your facts right!

That’s what I said.

 

[Grailhunter]

hahaha!!!

The Puritans are ENGLISH, and they founded America! get your facts right!

Haa Haa belly roll! Well I am thinking that they did not plant a English flag on the shore.....LOL
And another fun fact, you cannot discover or "founded" a land that is occupied. LOL
An English man could land on the shore and proclaim, I see this land in the name of England!
An Spanish man could land on the shore and proclaim, I see this land in the name of Spain.
Except for the indigenous tribes that lived in the Americas, as far we know the Viking Leif Erikson was the first to see it.

 

[JohnPaul]

Haa Haa belly roll! Well I am thinking that they did not plant a English flag on the shore.....LOL
And another fun fact, you cannot discover or "founded" a land that is occupied. LOL
An English man could land on the shore and proclaim, I see this land in the name of England!
An Spanish man could land on the shore and proclaim, I see this land in the name of Spain.
Except for the indigenous tribes that lived in the Americas, as far we know the Viking Leif Erikson was the first to see it.

Yes you can, America was founded by the English.

 

[Grailhunter]

Yes you can, America was founded by the English.

LOL

 

[Lifelong_sinner]

I think it would be more correct to say the United States were founded by english folk.

 

[Grailhunter]

I think it would be more correct to say the United States were founded by english folk.

Ok folks....the Americas were occupied for thousands of years with their own societies and settlements.
If the Russians land on our shores they can not say they discovered America, it is occupied.

 

[Grailhunter]

Leif Erikson came to America around the year 1000.

Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas in 1492..

Jacques Cartier began the French colonization of North American in 1534.

The first English colony was founded at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. Many of the people who settled in the New World came to escape religious persecution. The Pilgrims, founders of Plymouth, Massachusetts, arrived in 1620. In both Virginia and Massachusetts, the colonists flourished with some assistance from Native Americans.

The Puritans landed in the Mayflower in 1630.

 

[Naomanos]

In both Virginia and Massachusetts, the colonists flourished with some assistance from Native Americans.

I really feel bad for Native Americans. They really got the raw end of the deal.

 

[FHII]

Haa Haa belly roll! Well I am thinking that they did not plant a English flag on the shore.....LOL

Perhaps I am missing sarcasm here... but they did.

We can talk about Jamestown and Plymouth, but these are the first English settlements. St. Augustine was founded by the Spainish in 1565. Furthermore, it's not the first time Europeans were here. Lief may have been the first. But there were plenty of Europeans here before Plymouth and Jamestown were settled. Heck, Squanto (a Native American who greeted the Pilgims) spoke English.

 

[Grailhunter]

Perhaps I am missing sarcasm here... but they did.

We can talk about Jamestown and Plymouth, but these are the first English settlements. St. Augustine was founded by the Spainish in 1565. Furthermore, it's not the first time Europeans were here. Lief may have been the first. But there were plenty of Europeans here before Plymouth and Jamestown were settled. Heck, Squanto (a Native American who greeted the Pilgims) spoke English.

There were several people that came to the Americas and the continent was known to exist for centuries. The issue is using the words founded or discovered. Christopher could say he found or discovered the Bahamas for Spain. You can find it but it is not a general discovery because it was occupied. The Indians knew it was here long before the Europeans sailed, who knew it was here before they sailed.

Now to say the English founded the first English settlements...is correct. The people that came over here could be founders of a city or a colony.....but not the continent.