Do you think it's Christian to own guns?

[Mary7]

And the kicker is that they already had two swords in their possession. They didn't have to go buy any because they were both walking with Jesus and already armed.

Does anyone think that 2 swords were enough to face down a group if needed?
Sorry, but in taking the entire NT in context I dont see armed resistance in step with the teachings of love your enemies... he who lives by the sword dies by the sword... this is not my kingdom, then would my servants fight.

Now, this is hard for me and I am still struggling with it as far as SELF defense or family defense. But running around town with guns.... that is asking for trouble imo.
Remember one of the recent school shootings and the one good guy had a gun but said he didnt dare use it because the police who were there within minutes would think he was a shooter and kill him.
And the man that tried to help a car jacking victim and KILLED him by accident!
I just have to wonder if our country has not gotten out of balance on this whole thing.

 

[South Bound]

Romans 13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

I guess the 'christian' founding fathers chose to disregard and disobey the Scripture.
Oh wait! Most were not christians but Theists.
I have read that many of the soldiers were forced to fight and many were promised land in return. It was not a situation of everyone happily fighting against England.. there was much division on the topic.

Ben Franklin ....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

ETHAN ALLEN
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

 

[South Bound]

Romans 13 All of you must obey those who rule over you. There are no authorities except the ones God has chosen. Those who now rule have been chosen by God. 2 So whoever opposes the authorities opposes leaders whom God has appointed. Those who do that will be judged.

I guess the 'christian' founding fathers chose to disregard and disobey the Scripture.
Oh wait! Most were not christians but Theists.
I have read that many of the soldiers were forced to fight and many were promised land in return. It was not a situation of everyone happily fighting against England.. there was much division on the topic.

Ben Franklin ....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

ETHAN ALLEN
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814,

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

 

[Mary7]

And yet, you refuse to join a medical sharing coop.
No such thing available and like I said.. for someone UNINSURABLE you can get no insurance.



Then may your chains rest very heavily on you and may posterity forget that you were our countryman.

If you prefer socialism, why not move to a socialist country, rather than trying to destroy America?

You are already using socialist programs... you need to move to an island.
Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
*military
*police
*firefighters
*voting
*Medicare
*Medicaid
*Social Security
*public libraries
*public schools
*government college grants, scholarships, and loans
*roads (except toll roads)
*the FDA
*the EPA
garbage pickup
sewer

 

[jiminpa]

I had the number of registered voters in 2014 in Philadelphia County and I was going to post it, but I was also going to post the number of registered voters for each prior election. However, it appears the webmaster moved the data to another folder and the links were dead. Instead, I used the the population numbers to show that the votes cast in each election remained fairly constant with the population numbers, though in 2014 there were fewer votes cast compared to prior years.


Digital voting machines certainly do whatever they are programmed to do, just like any other computer. Have you volunteered to work the polls to see how the machines and the process works? I have many times. Volunteering to be an election judge and following the process of voting has been very enlightening. I encourage everyone to do it. In fact, in most cases your local election commissioner encourages it, as well, because he/she often doesn't have enough people to properly handle the number of voters who show up.

The voting machines are double-sealed with numbered tags that must match the master list of tags. If they don't everything comes to a complete halt. About 1 hour before the polls open we go through unsealing each one, starting it up and validating zero votes. Each machine must produce 2 tapes showing every person on the ballot with a zero starting vote. If that doesn't happen, the machine is marked as invalid, shut down, removed from the array of machines and the election commissioner is notified immediately. When the polls close and we start the shutdown process, each machine must produce 2 tapes showing the votes for every candidate. The machine even tabulates and prints the votes on an hourly basis for later reconciliation with the card authorization machines, so at the end of the day each machine will use up almost an entire tape roll in providing all the numbers. The results are posted at each election precinct before any election judge leaves the building. The machines are put back in their cases, re-sealed twice with new matching numbers, and the machines and master list are handed over to the election commissioner immediately afterward.

While there might be issues in electronic voting, there are definitely issues with paper ballots. Just ask Florida.

The only issue with Florida was that Gore didn't win, and he was too much of an entitled crybaby to acknowledge it.

None of what you said about the electronic voting machines does anything to make me think that the outcome isn't pre-programmed into them. They just have to do it so that the number of votes that they score matches the number of votes presented. I'm not a programmer, but I'm familiar enough with programming to know that it wouldn't be difficult at all, and there is 0 chance of verifying. I also know a person who had the machines try to vote for the opponent of the candidate he was trying to vote for and had to make the selection multiple times to get it to finally display the selection he made. Notice that I said that it displayed the correct selection, only the programmer knows if it actually tallied it according to that choice. Why would I believe in a completely hidden process put in place by people who continuously demonstrate that they can't be trusted?

 

[South Bound]

I live in the Deep South and since the flag has been banned, I try to 'obey the authorities' on that.[/'quote]

I live in Alabama. You can't get much more "deep south" than that. Where in the "deep south" has the flag been banned? And, since when does the "deep south" have the authority to ban speech?

I would never obey the authorities if they told me speech was banned. I would speak more.

As a former tea party member our thinking was.. help those lazy blacks on welfare?

Then I'm glad you left the Tea Party movement, as such an attitude would be abhorrent within Tea Party circles. (Not that I believe you ever were a Tea Party member.)

To address the 'civil war' in the future that has been brought up.. I know quite a few people that have been stockpiling weapons/ammo for years because.. they think a civil war is coming.

Of course you do! Just like you conveniently happened to have two children with "life threatening illnesses", just like the Confederate flag just happens to be "banned in the 'deep south'", just like you were a Tea Party member who happens to have beliefs that contradict the overall Tea Party philosophy.

Don't forget how many thought and still think that the government was (is) going to take over Texas recently.

Seriously? You really think that's what the objection to Jade Helm was about?

When the Lt Gov of Tenn urged christians to get guns, I started rethinking my strong right to guns views. I could not picture Jesus and the Apostles fighting back with weapons

That's up to you. But just because you prefer not to do something isn't an excuse to impose it on the rest of us.

They did not fight back with weapons.

Fight back against what?

Yes i know about the buy swords verse that is taken out of context of the rest of the NT.

First of all, how is it taken out of context?

Second, if context is so important, then why did you quote the snippet of the sentence from the Treaty of Tripoli out of context?

Jesus rebuked Peter for using a sword.

No, He didn't rebuke Peter for "using a sword".

What has happened to the teachings of Jesus to love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you and to help the poor?

Nothing, as far as I know. You're the one who said you didn't believe in "helping them blacks on welfare".

 

[South Bound]

You are already using socialist programs... you need to move to an island.
Civil Service Retirement Systems
Federal Employee Retirement Systems
Railroad Retirement System
*military
*police
*firefighters
*voting
*Medicare
*Medicaid
*Social Security
*public libraries
*public schools
*government college grants, scholarships, and loans
*roads (except toll roads)
*the FDA
*the EPA
garbage pickup
sewer

. .
How are these things "socialist"? Some may be Unconstitutional but none are "socialist".

Oh wait! Most were not christians but Theists.

First of all, Christians are theists. Weird that somebody who claims to be a Christian wouldn't know that.

Second, most were Christians. Many were pastors or vestrymen.

Third, whether you believe they were Christians or not, they were heavily influenced by Christianity and their writings and philosophy reflect this.

Ben Franklin ....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”

Read the whole thing. He's referring to his youth. Read his writings from later in his life. While he was most likely not a Christian, he was still influenced by Christianity and was sympathetic to it. He frequently wrote of seeking God's provision and God's will, which deists do not believe in.

ETHAN ALLEN
From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”

Actually, Ethan Allen was a militia leader, not a Founder.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Nobody has claimed Christianity is codified in common law. Read the whole thing. He's talking about philosophy, not law.

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

1. Remember when you tried to lecture me about context? The context here is an assurance to the Muslims that we are not a theocracy and not intent on a holy war with them.

2. This sentence was not in the original treaty Congress ratified, but was inserted later by a translator.

3. The treaty was superseded by a later treaty that did not include the phrase.

 

[Hank77]

As a Christian, are you okay with people choosing to commit suicide?

Before I was a Christian I was not OK with people being so unhappy, depressed, or so mentally unstable that they would take their own life and sometimes others too. One of my closest friends committed suicide and so did an in-law. It is extremely unlikely that not having access to a gun would have prevented either one of those suicides.
The mentally ill need to be able to have access to the medical care that they need. Families need to admit there is a problem with a family member and help that person rather than ignoring it or hoping that it will get better. There is still a stigma attached to mental illness that one does not find about other types of illness.
If I know that a person is an alcoholic I am not going to give them access to driving my vehicle, so if I know that someone is mentally unstable I am not going to give them access to my guns. Many people commit suicide with prescription drugs should we make prescription drugs unavailable or should we be responsible as individuals to ensure that mentally unstable people do not have access to the prescription drugs in our homes?

Also if one looks at the statics we find that suicide rates go up when there is a serious economic crash. We can see that there are social issues that lead to rising suicide rates. The rates are lower when times are good.

But to try to insinuate the guns cause people to commit suicide is unfounded. Taking guns away from law abiding citizens is like putting a bandaide on a much more complex issue.

The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”~1797 Treaty of Tripoli signed by Founding Father John Adams

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Partial quotes can be deceptive; it's the same as partial quotes of scripture that are taken out of the context of the whole, thus loosing the true intent of the speaker.
These statements are only relevant to our government and do not speak to the individual beliefs of our Founding Fathers or to the beliefs of the majority of the people who originally made up the makeup of this country.

I'm glad that an American has written this as I'm not sure that as an Australian that I would get away with saying what you have; though from my limited knowledge on these events you appear to be spot on.

lol, most Americans are very aware of how our government was established with the separation of church and state. We all learn this in school as children, maybe some were not listening. We learn to recite the Bill of Rights, The Preamble, etc. and what they say and why.
Listening to you Aussies it appears that at least some of you have the false impression that US Christians are mostly far, far right extremist and that the majority of gun owners want to take over the country by storm. You are miss informed.

And Jesus rebuked him for using it.

He said, "put it back in your sheath" not get rid of it. He said that they should not try to stop God's plan of redemption.
The slave was not at fault for what was happening and Jesus healed him.

As the provider, for those in my household, I'm responsible for not only the food, water and shelter of my family, but the safty as well.
In other words, how can I be a responsible provider for my family, if I were to allow people to come steal our food, and destroy our home or kill and rape my family.

Good post, good scripture reference. Thanks.

 

[nomadictheist]

Does anyone think that 2 swords were enough to face down a group if needed?

Most people understand that to mean "we've talked about this enough..." Jesus was on the verge of the most painful, most difficult experience of His life, and He didn't want to spend time dwelling on swords...

Sorry, but in taking the entire NT in context I dont see armed resistance in step with the teachings of love your enemies... he who lives by the sword dies by the sword... this is not my kingdom, then would my servants fight.

Taking the entire NT in context, you would have to also take the context of this quote that you took out of context...

To put it in context, this is Jesus response to Pilate's question about His kingship. The point here is that if He were an earthly King His servants would currently be rebelling against the Roman Government and fighting to free Him. His servants weren't overthrowing the government to preserve His life because His kingdom transcended earthly kingdoms and their boundaries.

Now, this is hard for me and I am still struggling with it as far as SELF defense or family defense. But running around town with guns.... that is asking for trouble imo.
Remember one of the recent school shootings and the one good guy had a gun but said he didnt dare use it because the police who were there within minutes would think he was a shooter and kill him.
And the man that tried to help a car jacking victim and KILLED him by accident!
I just have to wonder if our country has not gotten out of balance on this whole thing.

And now you've pointed out how out of whack society has gotten about guns because of people like you. Police opening fire on somebody who legally carries because anyone holding a gun in a bad situation is a perpetrator, people who own guns and don't have sufficient training with them, partially because strict regulations have made it difficult - even well nigh impossible to get sufficient practice and training in firearm safety and use. Practice ranges are getting scarcer and more expensive. Many cities now have rules against target practice in your backyard, so you can't do it at home, or at your buddy's home...

So people (not just Christians) shouldn't carry firearms if they don't know how to use them properly. But the government also shouldn't make it so difficult for people to practice the use and care of firearms...

 

[expos4ever]

Luke 22:26
Jesus Predicts Peter's Denial
…35And He said to them, "When I sent you out without money belt and bag and sandals, you did not lack anything, did you?" They said, "No, nothing." 36And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment."…



Why? because Yahshua knew he would no longer be there to protect them.

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to bear arms:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

 

[ldibart]

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to bear arms:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

uhm not sure why you think this interpretation is correct but pretty sure even 12 men all carrying four swords each still do not make any worry for the roman army,.. So to restate your point 12 with a sword each (or 4) would not make a worry, how the heck can 2 swords.. the term to be numbered with the transgressors the transgressors where sinners of all kinds not just the kind you want to make an anti gun point. Jesus was actually upset about the men in his fathers house robbing his people get it HE DID NOT LIKE THIEVES OR ROBBERS ..not some shrewd cloaked play acting like he was lying about how he felt! the BIBLE states about what was going on in his fathers house PERIOD and showed how Jesus felt about this Not some lie act. Jesus did not need to attempt to provoke a darn thing to have the prophecies fulfilled about him! Did he somehow make his own birth line up to the day in the Prophesies in Daniel? did he force his parents to move to Egypt OR better yet he must have engineered the romans to use crucifixion methods to make a way for his death to equal a crucifixion and resemble in detail the prophecies stated in

Psalms 22:16For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 17 I may tell all my bones: they look [and] stare upon me. 18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

Zechariah 12:8In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David [shall be] as God, as the angel of the LORD before them. 9 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem. 10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his]

Many many prophecies NONE needed to be play acted none needed to be made to happen Blasphemy was a main charge against him which fits the numbered with transgressors
Mark 14:63-64, we read: "Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" And they all condemned Him to be worthy of death."

 

[expos4ever]

uhm not sure why you think this interpretation is correct....

I think it is correct precisely for the reasons stated in my post. Why do you think I bothered to make such a detailed argument, if not to present the reasons why I think this interpretation is correct? Here is the essence, though: Jesus links the acquisition of the sword very specifically to fulfillment of the prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

And you don't need to be a genius to see how being part of armed band would make you seem like a "transgressor" to the authorities.

but pretty sure even 12 men all carrying four swords each still do not make any worry for the roman army,..

Well, any group of armed people would almost certainly be seen as a threat to law and good order. No one is suggesting that this small band of people would be seen as a threat to actually overthrow the Roman military. But that is not really the point - the point is that to be perceived as the leader of an armed group definitely puts you at risk for arrest as a troublemaker.

And, I suggest, in this case, Jesus is orchestrating His own arrest in order meet His awful destiny on the Cross.

Jesus did not need to attempt to provoke a darn thing to have the prophecies fulfilled about him! Did he somehow make his own birth line up to the day in the Prophesies in Daniel? did he force his parents to move to Egypt OR...

Not the point. Of course, Jesus did not orchestrate all prophecies about Him. But that is hardly an argument that He did not orchestrate some.

In fact, it is clear that He did orchestrate some. Consider the action in the Temple that we have both mentioned. Here is the Old Testament prophecy from Malachi related to this:

And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?

When did Jesus come to the temple? To clear it of the moneychangers of course! Jesus clearly intentionally went to the Temple to fulfill this prophecy.

 

[ldibart]

I think it is correct precisely for the reasons stated in my post. Why do you think I bothered to make such a detailed argument, if not to present the reasons why I think this interpretation is correct? Here is the essence, though: Jesus links the acquisition of the sword very specifically to fulfillment of the prophecy that Jesus be seen as a transgressor.

And you don't need to be a genius to see how being part of armed band would make you seem like a "transgressor" to the authorities.


Well, any group of armed people would almost certainly be seen as a threat to law and good order. No one is suggesting that this small band of people would be seen as a threat to actually overthrow the Roman military. But that is not really the point - the point is that to be perceived as the leader of an armed group definitely puts you at risk for arrest as a troublemaker.

And, I suggest, in this case, Jesus is orchestrating His own arrest in order meet His awful destiny on the Cross.


Not the point. Of course, Jesus did not orchestrate all prophecies about Him. But that is hardly an argument that He did not orchestrate some.

In fact, it is clear that He did orchestrate some. Consider the action in the Temple that we have both mentioned. Here is the Old Testament prophecy from Malachi related to this:

And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming," says the Lord of hosts. 2"But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears?

When did Jesus come to the temple? To clear it of the moneychangers of course! Jesus clearly intentionally went to the Temple to fulfill this prophecy.

Ok we will take this prophecy as being fulfilled for sake of argument..Maybe just maybe he actually did indeed feel upset about what they were doing he did indeed know in advance they were there and robbing people blind out of his fathers house ..You are taking this like he did this as a shrewd way to force the hands of the Jews NOT because he was actually upset about it. My point is he used force to remove them even if it was an act which it was not an act, he actually and forcefully tossed these HOME INVADERS out ..what do you think would have happened if they did not leave? he would what say ok well I tried..EXTREMELY doubtful I would venture a guess that they would have been killed ..just like ananias and his wife was for lying to the holy ghost and them too stole from the church by holding back money and did not confess their sins.

 

[redleghunter]

From the perspective of an outsider, I would have to ask why your first Civil War (Revolutionary War) was necessary in the first place? I know that the Canadians had a brief skirmish over independence sometime in the 1830's but they soon got over it and moved on. Who knows, if the US had of remained in the Commonwealth then slavery would have been abolished years earlier without the need for the US to have slaughtered over 650,000 of its own citizens to a war that did not really do all that much in the end. It was probably only in the 1960's that the US finally achieved its aim of abolishing slavery along with its continuing lynchings through to the 1960's.

Perhaps revisit US colonial history. The Red Coats invaded Massachusetts and made like a beeline to Lexington and Concord to disarm the colonists and arrest her duly elected leaders.

The Colonies did try diplomacy on a number of occasions, and embargoes. But the tyrant George III would have nothing to do with this mess of liberty and Independence. We even sent a nice note in July 1776 asking the king nicely to bug off. If the American Founders lived today people would be setting up sites named #colonial livesmatter.

If you have to ask such questions your knowledge of European history since the Reformation needs to be refreshed. The American ideals of proper representation by the governed and "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --" are Reformation ideals.

What makes the US progress towards liberty different than your country is the First Great Awakening.

But we were talking about guns. Perhaps if the crowns of England and France did not try murdering each other over land in the French and Indian wars, American colonists could have lived more peacefully and in peace with the natives.

Back then if you did not have something to defend yourself you could literally lose your scalp.

 

[redleghunter]

Lastly, you have once again taken another poster to task without tagging them to your comments. That is poor forum manners

Had I done this I would have just been quoting someone else not Southbound at all = aren't you splitting hairs?
Really it's always been war for the Americans but it is getting that way for everyone else now... 'Nation will fight against Nation? I'ts all happening
Bye the way Redleghunter You've no right to dictate to me or anyone

Have I dictated something towards you? I missed that if I did.

The US constantly at war is a naive statement. If Europe was not such a blood lust continent the US would have been fine surrounded by oceans.

 

[redleghunter]

Umm.. he told Peter to put away his sword and he healed the man. You cannot pull one verse about buying a sword (and they showed him 2 and he said it is enough) against the entire NT teaching of love your enemies. No where does it show Jesus or the Apostles using force against the government or anyone.

You are most correct Jesus said love our enemies. That does not mean let them kill us if we have the means to defend ourselves. We can love our enemies but we don't have to love their evil intent.

I seriously doubt any woman or man who is Christian would allow to be sexually assaulted without a struggle.

If so then why is it such a big deal for folks here to see a Christian own a gun to defend his family and household?

 

[ldonjohn]

How does one know if he/she is confident in his/her faith? How does one know if other family members are confident in their faith? What does that look like? Is it just a feeling?

A Christian's confidence is not a feeling nor is it something that can be seen. There might be/should be evidence of the Christian's changed life that can be seen. Confidence in "self" or in ones faith is not "believing" faith. A Christian's confidence is in the Gospel message; the message of the Cross. A believer cannot explain the confidence or assurance of salvation that leads to a lasting peace to an unbeliever in a way that the unbeliever can understand it. If anyone is to understand a Christian's confidence or faith he/she must have the "born-again" experience himself/herself. The truth about becoming a genuine, born-again Christian is found only in God's Word and can be understood only as revealed by the Holy Spirit to an unbeliever who is earnestly seeking God's Way of salvation. In other words a Christian can share the Gospel message with an unbeliever but only the Holy Spirit can give the unbeliever the ability to understand his/her need to have sins forgiven and the sufficiency of the finished work of Jesus at the cross.

 

[South Bound]

You are most correct Jesus said love our enemies. That does not mean let them kill us if we have the means to defend ourselves. We can love our enemies but we don't have to love their evil intent.

I seriously doubt any woman or man who is Christian would allow to be sexually assaulted without a struggle.

If so then why is it such a big deal for folks here to see a Christian own a gun to defend his family and household?

I think the question is, assuming loving our enemy means standing by and letting them harm our neighbor, why should our obligation to love our enemy be greater than our obligation to love our neighbor?

If we stand by while our neighbor is harmed, how is that loving them?

How does that fulfil the Bible's command to "rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked"?

 

[nomadictheist]

The following text, from Luke 22, is often used to support the right to bear arms:

And He said to them, "But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one. 37"For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment." 38They said, "Lord, look, here are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough."

Obviously a “superficial” reading suggests that Jesus is advocating the “right” to carry a weapon. However, the fact that such a reading is deeply at odds with other things Jesus teaches should be a tip-off that things are not as they appear. And indeed, such is the case here. When this text is understood in broader context, we realize that Jesus is not making any kind of a case for the right to bear arms (swords or otherwise).

In order to arrive at the correct interpretation, we really need to step back and ask ourselves what Jesus’ larger purpose was in this dialogue. Note the connective “for” at the beginning of verse 37. It suggests that the material which follows is an explanation or amplification on the point just made – that the followers of Jesus are to sell their coats and buy a sword. So what is Jesus’ larger purpose?

It is that He been seen as a transgressor. Jesus is intentionally orchestrating things so that the Jewish authorities will have plausible grounds for arresting Him. Of course, appearing as part of an armed band would be precisely the ideal scenario to ensure Jesus’ arrest. Remember the “for” at the beginning of verse 37. If we are to be careful students of what Jesus is saying, we need to take seriously what Jesus says in verses 37 and 38 as qualifying and explaining his statement about buying a sword. We cannot simply gloss the text and conclude “Look, Jesus is making some kind of general statement about the right to self-defence with weapons”.

In fact, this very specific focus on the intent to be seen as a transgressor is powerfully sustained by Jesus’ statement that there is prophecy that He (Jesus) must be seen as a transgressor.

Remember the incident in the temple with Jesus overthrowing the tables of the moneychangers. This is not, as many people think, merely a repudiation of the sin of materialism. It is also a shrewd provocation on the part of Jesus. By creating a ruckus in the temple, He is forcing the hand of the Jewish leaders – they cannot allow such behaviour, Jesus must be arrested soon.

This is why, in the next verse, when the disciples say they have two swords, Jesus says “It is enough.” Obviously, if Jesus ever intended for the disciples to use the swords, two swords would not be nearly enough in any kind of armed action. But it’s enough to fulfill the prophecy by making Jesus appear to be participating in a violent revolutionary movement of some kind.

Unlike the “Jesus is supporting the right to bear arms” interpretation, note how the above interpretation makes sense of the entire account. If Jesus was really making some general statement about a “right to bear arms”, how exactly does that contribute to His being numbered with transgressors? And how does that make sense of the limit of two swords? Such a “right to bear arms” interpretation makes sense of neither. So it is almost certainly an incorrect interpretation of Jesus’ statement about buying a couple of swords.

Makes sense of the entire account?

[sarcasm]
I didn't know it was illegal in ancient Rome to carry a money belt or a purse... Guess you learn something new every day.
[/sarcasm]

Clearly, from the other items that taking a sword is combined with, it has nothing to do with Jesus' being "numbered with the transgressors." That prophecy was fulfilled when He was accused of blasphemy and sent off to Pontus Pilate for sentencing. Rather, you need to go back to what He said before when He recalled to them how they were sent out with nothing before and all their needs were met.

So here's the message in a paraphrased modern vernacular nutshell...

Jesus: "Remember how I sent you out before with no money or supplies. Did you ever lack anything you needed?"
Disciples: "We always had everything we needed."
Jesus: "Well this time get your wallet and your bags, and if you don't have a sword buy one. Because, as the prophecy says, I will soon be counted as a criminal."
Disciples: "We've got two swords here."
Jesus: "Ok."

Now - is Jesus supporting the "right to bear arms?" No. But neither is He commanding against it.

 

[malvina]

There are two sins that cannot be atoned for.
Blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.
Suicide, obviously because you are dead, dead people cannot atone for sin.

That's a bit rich Sheeple! especially as in ancient times (and some still now) old people used to go out in the desert - or in the snow - to die when they felt they were no more use to the world even in bible times (I will have to find quotes) but this was 'is' common practice for people that have 'had enough' and see they will become a burden to their families. Why would the Lord exclude them from heaven when they have given up their lives for others? and what about the heroes that die shielding someone from a bullet etc?