Do you support/condone violence?

[theseed]

...here we see that you didn't answer the question at all. In fact, your post has nothing to do with my question.

I did too, which only goes to show how much you can understand things. I said that pacifism is important at times--not all the time. And the sermon passages speak of getting revenge in general, and not persection per se. That's obvious from the text. He starts out with the "eye for an eye" and tells us to love our enemies. So because it's obvious, I can't make it any simpler.

I never said you made any kind of a blanket statement. I don't even know what you're referring to

Neither of these passages is a blanket condemnation of violence.

You asked where Christ's admonition to His disciples was found and I showed you. Then, you completely ignored it as well as my point that Jesus, Himself, committed an act of violence.

No, I didn't; I aswered it the very first time you brought it up. We have been going in circles, which means you have all the answers you need from me in these posts. So, I have nothing to say further. You seem to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

[terry13]

What was His orders to His Disciples to BUY SWORDS for their defense?????

I don't know a single reputable commentator that takes that verse in a literal sense of actually buying swords…for example, HSOBx at this ref:

"This is a hard saying in the sense that it is difficult to reconcile it with Jesus’ general teaching on violence: violence was not the course for his followers to take. It is widely held that this saying was not meant to be taken literally, but if not, how was it meant to be taken?

"It occurs in Luke’s Gospel only. Luke reports it as part of a conversation between Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper. Jesus reminds them of an earlier occasion when he sent them out on a missionary tour and told them not to take a purse (for money) or bag (for provisions) or sandals. Presumably, they could expect their needs to be supplied by well-disposed people along their route (Lk 10:4–7). But now things were going to be different: people would be reluctant to show them hospitality, for they might get into trouble for doing so. On that earlier occasion, as the disciples now agreed, they had lacked nothing. “But now,” said Jesus, “if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag”—they would have to fend for themselves. More than that, “if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.” If that is surprising, more surprising still is the reason he gives for this change of policy: “It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.”


"It is doubtful if the disciples followed his reasoning here, but they thought they had got the point about the sword. No need to worry about that: “See, Lord,” they said, “here are two swords.” To which he replied, “That is enough” or, perhaps, “Enough of this.”

"Luke certainly does not intend his readers to understand the words literally. He goes on to tell how, a few hours later, when Jesus was arrested, one of the disciples let fly with a sword—probably one of the two which they had produced at the supper table—and cut off an ear of the high priest’s slave. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” and healed the man’s ear with a touch (Lk 22:49–51).

"So what did he mean by his reference to selling one’s cloak to buy a sword? He himself was about to be condemned as a criminal, “numbered with the transgressors,” to use language applied to the Servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53:12. Those who until now had been his associates would find themselves treated as outlaws; they could no longer count on the charity of sympathetic fellow Israelites. Purse and bag would now be necessary. Josephus tells us that when Essenes went on a journey they had no need to take supplies with them, for they knew that their needs would be met by fellow members of their order; they did, however, carry arms to protect themselves against bandits.

"But Jesus does not envisage bandits as the kind of people against whom his disciples would require protection; they themselves would be lumped together with bandits by the authorities, and they might as well act the part properly and carry arms, as bandits did. Taking him literally, the disciples revealed that they had anticipated his advice: they already had two swords. This incidentally shows how far they were from resembling a band of Zealot insurgents: such a band would have been much more adequately equipped. And the words with which Jesus concluded the conversation did not mean that two swords would be enough; they would have been ludicrously insufficient against the band that came to arrest him, armed with swords and clubs. He meant “Enough of this!”—they had misunderstood his sad irony, and it was time to drop the subject. T. W. Manson rendered the words “Well, well.” In contrast to the days when they had shared their Master’s popularity, “they are now surrounded by enemies so ruthless that the possession of two swords will not help the situation.”

'This text … has nothing to say directly on the question whether armed resistance to injustice and evil is ever justifiable. It is simply a vivid pictorial way of describing the complete change which has come about in the temper and attitude of the Jewish people since the days of the disciples’ mission. The disciples understood the saying literally and so missed the point; but that is no reason why we should follow their example.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Even so, for Jesus to warn Peter that violence only leads to more violence is not the same as teaching against violence.

This is a fair statement. Yet, it certainly is a caution against the use of violence, which is consistent with everything else Jesus teaches. I am concerned that when we polarize issues like this and debate them, we end up thinking wrong things like, "If Jesus didn't condemn each and every use of violence, then using violence must be OK for a Christian." This dichotomy between condemned and "OK" gets Christians into a lot of trouble. We humans tend to use this kind of logic to justify bad actions by excluding all but the two possible extremes.

Actually, in both of these passages, Jesus is speaking specifically about how His disciples are to handle themselves in the face of persecution for the sake of the Gospel. Neither of these passages is a blanket condemnation of violence.

You've never attempted to explain the contradiction between Jesus ordering His disciples to go and buy swords with which to protect themselves...

Read what Jesus said in Luke 22. It's actually rather cryptic. You continue to add, "with which to protect themselves," when you quote Jesus. I don't see those words. They are your interpretation. I have a question about your interpretation.

Since you acknowledge that Jesus teaches nonresistance in situations of persecution, is it not a contradiction to order his disciples to buy swords to protect themselves against persecution?

... and the idea that Jesus is against all forms of violence, even when appropriate. I also notice that you completely ignored the example I brought up about Jesus committing an act of violence in the temple.

So then, was His violence justified or was He a hypocrite?

Jesus' supposed "use of violence" in the Temple is often raised in an attempt to nullify everything Jesus teaches against the use of violence, force or coercion. I assume you noticed there is no mention of Jesus harming anyone on this occasion. It was a demonstration. It is worth looking at, but it doesn't work to nullify Jesus' teachings.

 

[12volt_man]

I did too, which only goes to show how much you can understand things.

OK.

I will now go back and cut and paste every one of your posts from this thread.

I hate to do that, but if you're going to continue to insist that you have answered my questions when, in fact, you have ignored them, then I feel it's only fair to go back and look for your answers...

Yes, Jesus did use the whip in the Temple, but are you Jesus?

Also, I need proof for the sword thing, because I've never seen it in the Bible, but infact, I have seen the opposite twice.

No answer in this post.

Matthew 26:52
Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for [Gen 9:6; Rev 13:10] all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.

No answer in this post.

Nice try, but you did not refute this passage. It clearly says that those who take up the sword will die by it--thus those who use violence will die by it. Therefore, this is an anti-violent statement.

And if this was not enough--about about the well-known obvious?

Matt. 5 (KJV)
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Luke 6 (KJV)
28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.
30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again.
31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.

No answer in this post.

It's not :sratch:

"but whosoever shall smite thee" (Matt. 5.39)

I belive that pacifism must be employed at times, but I don't always oppose going to war.

A very strong case for extreme pacifism can be made using Scripture. So I have been thinking alot about this lately.

See post #9

No answer here.

The observation has moral implications. Also, it read like a proverb or colloqualism.

Perscution is only part of the context, it is part of a long list of vile and evil things.

I've already answered this in post #9. I never made a blanket statement claim, you assumed I did. I said that I did not see where Christ taught his disciples to buy swords.

And Christ did turn the other cheek, and submitted himself to arrest, flogging, and crucifixion

No answer there.

did too, which only goes to show how much you can understand things. I said that pacifism is important at times--not all the time. And the sermon passages speak of getting revenge in general, and not persection per se. That's obvious from the text. He starts out with the "eye for an eye" and tells us to love our enemies. So because it's obvious, I can't make it any simpler.

No, I didn't; I aswered it the very first time you brought it up. We have been going in circles, which means you have all the answers you need from me in these posts. So, I have nothing to say further. You seem to argue for the sake of arguing.

So there you have it. Each of your posts in this thread reposted ver batem and we can clearly see that you still have not answered my question.

If you don't know, then there's no shame in saying "I don't know". If you just find it an uncomfortable question and don't want to answer, that's fine, too. Just say so. Don't insist that you've answered it when a careful perusal of your posts here shows that you haven't even addressed it.

He starts out with the "eye for an eye" and tells us to love our enemies. So because it's obvious, I can't make it any simpler.

OK. If that's the way you choose to read it then there's nothing anyone can tell you.

No, I didn't; I aswered it the very first time you brought it up.

I quoted every one of your posts ver batem. No answer.

We have been going in circles, which means you have all the answers you need from me in these posts.

In other words, the questions make you uncomfortable so you choose to ignore them.

So, I have nothing to say further. You seem to argue for the sake of arguing

As opposed to you, who argues for purely altruistic reasons.

Say what you will, but at least I have shown you the respect of responding to your points. You have completely ignored mine.

 

[12volt_man]

This is a fair statement. Yet, it certainly is a caution against the use of violence, which is consistent with everything else Jesus teaches.

You're absolutely right but, as I tried to explain to seed, an observation or even a caution isn't the same thing as a moral declaration.

I am concerned that when we polarize issues like this and debate them, we end up thinking wrong things like, "If Jesus didn't condemn each and every use of violence, then using violence must be OK for a Christian."

Remember, though, I'm speaking of specific instances in scripture.

I have a question about your interpretation.

Since you acknowledge that Jesus teaches nonresistance in situations of persecution, is it not a contradiction to order his disciples to buy swords to protect themselves against persecution?

Persecution, yes, but is He talking about persecution or protection?

Jesus' supposed "use of violence" in the Temple is often raised in an attempt to nullify everything Jesus teaches against the use of violence, force or coercion. I assume you noticed there is no mention of Jesus harming anyone on this occasion.

Did you know that the word translated in the text as "cast out" is ekballo, which implies to remove someone from a place by violent means?

It was a demonstration.

A violent demonstration.

It is worth looking at, but it doesn't work to nullify Jesus' teachings.

You're right. Jesus' teaching is consistent in teaching that there are occasions where violence, though regretable, is appropriate.

 

[theseed]

 

[Crazy Liz]

Me too.